Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security
Angelocracy.com
At Virginia Tech some of the students moved tables in front of the
door to try to keep the gunman from comming in. Because there was no
way to lock the door. A few years back there was a shooting at a
college or University in Canada. Can't remember the name of the
school. But today because of that shooting all class room doors at
that school can be lock and only a teacher can unlock them. The same
should be done at all schools here in the USA. Also there should be a
panic button in all classrooms and other parts of the schools. Also
security cameras.
The frist shooting happen at 7:15. The second happen at 9:45. There
was no alert sent out to students about the shooting at 7:15 until
9:26. People were still coming on to Virginia Tech. Students were
still make there way to class. After the 2 shooting at 9:45 a lock
down order was given about 15 min later. If a lock down order was
given right after the frist shooting at 7:15 the death toll would have
been much less. The school and the police drop the ball on this one.
In the weeks to come people will lose there jobs over this. There will
be many law suits.
Kane
wrote:
Hmmm...interesting thoughts.
Anyone that knows the routine, as this STUDENT obviously did, can plan
ahead, as this STUDENT obviously did (door chains, and filing serial
numbers off two guns?), would be likely to also plan ahead to deal
with locked doors.
As it was, in two instances, I believe, just blocking the door stopped
him from reentering a room he had just shot up.
One by students using just their feet (two people I believe) and one
using a large desk or cabinet, which he shot through but could not
come through.
This was a thoroughly americanized young man (came to the US at 8
years old). I'll bet you he knew his way around a hardware store or
farm supply. I can think of three things, portable, that would take me
through just about any classroom door in a split second from either
kind of store...and no, I won't list them specifically.
What happened at Virginia Tech is the same kind of bs that goes on
wherever gun grabbers, and ignorance collide. People think a ban
produces less opportunity to get a gun.
It only takes ONE.
The obvious answer is the one we "gun nuts" know perfectly well by
statistical data analysis works. An armed citizenry reduces the 'urge'
when the person knows he or she can be shot down by a legally armed
citizen, and two, that care about that or not, the murderous rampage
will stop when the murderer is down and or dead.
No one could do it.
Imagine if that janitor you heard talk about being shot at about five
times, as he had to run away, had himself been properly armed, and
fired back.
Do a ng google on talk.politics.guns searching for "Tacoma Mall." The
armed citizen was hit even BEFORE he could get a shot off, but the
perp ran and hid and STOPPED SHOOTING PEOPLE.
It is wonderfuly sobering to the crazy to get return fire. They may
decide later to suicide by their own hand, but there is something
about someone ELSE shooting at you that tends to slow the scenario
down considerably.
A couple of school shootings in England, under similar circumstances,
that is that it was illegal to carry on schoolgrounds, ended with a
paroxism of gun control.
How's the UK doing today?
MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before.
This relatively peaceful nation, one of those with the LOWEST gun
crime in the world, how has among the highest violent crime rates in
the civilized, or Western, world.
Thinking is the answer, not lockstep gun ban drooling.
What the university missed was sending out ARMED patrols to monitor
the other buildings quickly after the first incident of a killing.
But like cops everywhere, when the action starts, they tend to "clump"
at the site, then hang around getting their "hit" of adrenaline,
yakkin' it up, instead of going back out immediately on patrol, or
never coming to the incident site in the first place.
In this time and place, where both criminals and terrorists KNOW how
to create a situation to draw the cops off their primary target, or
their secondary one for that matter, having ANY slowdown in patrols
and changes in distribution of LE staff is totally stupid.
My we are slow to learn, eh?
Kane
John Jones
wrote:
Boring. This clutters up the British news for days. The same old
stories from the USA.
America wants to mix prozac and guns? Well, now they got prozac and
guns. Self-made Nutters.
Kane
Ah, so the Brits have figured out how to not have a mental health
problem, and they don't have violent crime.
Thanks for the heads up.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=british+crime&btnG=Google+Search
Kane
John Jones
>
> - Show quoted text -
America, put your toys away, put your cowboy suit in the attic chest,
and say goodbye to your childhood. Those days are long gone, and now
you are looking just a little bit silly.
Phin
>On Apr 17, 7:51 am, "Angelocracy.com" <gmail987654...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> Virginia Tech Shooting
>>
>> At Virginia Tech some of the students moved tables in front of the
>> door to try to keep the gunman from comming in. Because there was no
>> way to lock the door. A few years back there was a shooting at a
>> college or University in Canada. Can't remember the name of the
>> school. But today because of that shooting all class room doors at
>> that school can be lock and only a teacher can unlock them. The same
>> should be done at all schools here in the USA. Also there should be a
>> panic button in all classrooms and other parts of the schools. Also
>> security cameras.
>>
You know, it would be nice to spend some of the money for all that
technology instead on getting some quality mental health services
going on on these campuses then maybe tragedies like this wouldn't
happen in the first place.
Phin
Phin
wrote:
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. Here, there be
firearms available.
Phin
John Jones
> On 17 Apr 2007 13:18:04 -0700, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Godarn it thar boy! Pass the ammo cos ahrma gonna shoot it out like a
man! ..Yeh. I saw a similar mentality in your film 'Judgement Day'.
Corny and immature.
Rowley
> Virginia Tech Shooting
>
> At Virginia Tech some of the students moved tables in front of the
> door to try to keep the gunman from comming in. Because there was no
> way to lock the door. A few years back there was a shooting at a
> college or University in Canada. Can't remember the name of the
> school. But today because of that shooting all class room doors at
> that school can be lock and only a teacher can unlock them. The same
> should be done at all schools here in the USA. Also there should be a
> panic button in all classrooms and other parts of the schools. Also
> security cameras.
>
> The frist shooting happen at 7:15. The second happen at 9:45. There
> was no alert sent out to students about the shooting at 7:15 until
> 9:26. People were still coming on to Virginia Tech. Students were
> still make there way to class. After the 2 shooting at 9:45 a lock
> down order was given about 15 min later. If a lock down order was
> given right after the frist shooting at 7:15 the death toll would have
> been much less. The school and the police drop the ball on this one.
2020 hindsight huh?
Martin
Mr. Y
showing such a pro-NRA stance. If one could only buy shotguns, then they
would be harder to conceal and shoot up 32 people with. But they would be
good for home defense. Since this guy was going to kill himself anyways,
the fear of another person with a gun would not deter him.
"Kane" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176830693.2...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Ann
>Since this guy was going to kill himself anyways,
>the fear of another person with a gun would not deter him.
Who cares about his fear? Another person with a gun could have
stopped him. Doesn't matter if he feared it or not.
--
Ann
e-mail address is not checked
Rob
>
> It only takes ONE.
But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>
> The obvious answer is the one we "gun nuts" know perfectly well by
> statistical data analysis works. An armed citizenry reduces the 'urge'
> when the person knows he or she can be shot down by a legally armed
> citizen, and two, that care about that or not, the murderous rampage
> will stop when the murderer is down and or dead.
So your answer is more guns. With so many guns in the US why is the
USA not the safest country in the world.
>
> No one could do it.
>
> Imagine if that janitor you heard talk about being shot at about five
> times, as he had to run away, had himself been properly armed, and
> fired back.
>
> Do a ng google on talk.politics.guns searching for "Tacoma Mall." The
> armed citizen was hit even BEFORE he could get a shot off, but the
> perp ran and hid and STOPPED SHOOTING PEOPLE.
>
> It is wonderfuly sobering to the crazy to get return fire. They may
> decide later to suicide by their own hand, but there is something
> about someone ELSE shooting at you that tends to slow the scenario
> down considerably.
>
> A couple of school shootings in England, under similar circumstances,
> that is that it was illegal to carry on schoolgrounds, ended with a
> paroxism of gun control.
>
> How's the UK doing today?
>
> MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before.
Gun deaths per 100,000
United States 14.24
England and Wales 0.41
Rosalie B.
>Kane wrote:
>>
>> It only takes ONE.
>
>But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
>and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>
He didn't buy it at a gun fair (whatever that is). He had ID, he had
no police record and the buy was legal under the rules. If one has no
police record and is willing to wait the required number of days then
you can buy a gun. A safe would not help in the case where a person
wants to use his own gun.
The problem here is that none of the dots were connected. Some people
had one piece of evidence that he was mentally deranged, but no one
person knew all of the problem
Signs of derangement
1) Had an imaginary girl friend
2) Stalked some women
3) Wrote such violent plays that the female professor of the writing
class asked that he be removed from her class
4) Threatened suicide
And no one got him help until it was too late.
Jeremy
wrote:
> At Virginia Tech some of the students moved tables in front of the
> door to try to keep the gunman from comming in. Because there was no
> way to lock the door. A few years back there was a shooting at a
> college or University in Canada. Can't remember the name of the
> school. But today because of that shooting all class room doors at
> that school can be lock and only a teacher can unlock them. The same
> should be done at all schools here in the USA. Also there should be a
> panic button in all classrooms and other parts of the schools. Also
> security cameras.
I find it absolutely amazing that so many people think the way to
reduce these kinds of events is to lock doors, send out warning text
messages, install cameras, increase security forces, provide mental
health care, monitor students activities, ban MySpace and a million
other suggestions that totally miss the blindingly obvious:
CONTROL THE BLOODY GUNS!! Sheesh!!
Jeremy
bluemoon
"Jeremy" <jre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176905564.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
That's not going to happen.
Cerebus Lothario
"Rosalie B." <gmbe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:sm4c2318hf5d9p292...@4ax.com...
Jeremy
> > reduce these kinds of events is to lock doors, send out warning text
> > messages, install cameras, increase security forces, provide mental
> > health care, monitor students activities, ban MySpace and a million
> > other suggestions that totally miss the blindingly obvious:
>
> > CONTROL THE BLOODY GUNS!! Sheesh!!
>
No, I know <sigh>. The USA will always be a place where someone with
a recent mental health evaluation and numerous complaints of
disturbing behaviour on file can walk into a shop and buy a machine
specifically designed to kill and enough ammo to kill 150 with it.
Jeremy
Angelocracy.com
Montgomery County. Montgomery County Public Schools did more to keep
K-12 students safe. They acted faster and wiser than Virginia Tech.
After learning of the frist shooting at 7:15 at Virginia Tech.
Montgomery County Public Schools took extra security precautions to
keep there students safe. And also took steps to inform the parents of
the students. This all before Virginia Tech sent out an email to there
students at 9:26, and before the 2 shooting at 9:45.
So maybe Tiffany C. Anderson the Superintendent of Montgomery County
Public Schools , should be made President of Virginia Tech.
Kane
> Don't buy it. And I think that the Virginia Governor is an idiot for
> showing such a pro-NRA stance.
Had there been just ONE armed person to return fire he might never
have made it OUT of the first building where he murdered.
> If one could only buy shotguns, then they
> would be harder to conceal and shoot up 32 people with.
Vise. Hacksaw. Very nasty weapon that would have done MORE carnage.
Ever handled a short barrelled shotgun?
He had on a coat that could easily have concealed my OWN home
protection shotgun (not the only protection I keep of course) a Rem.
Marine Magnum 870. 18" barrel. You don't even need a long coat.
But if you were worried about it "printing" through your clothes you
could easily carry it in various packages commonly seen on
campuses....like art students carry their portfolios around.
No one would even notice you.
The answer? Obvious.
Some OTHER deterent, my friend. Like the sure knowledge that the odds
are high that someone along the way will be armed and take YOU out
before you do very much damage.
Now had that janitor that Cho shot at five times had access to a
gun ... hmmmmmmm.
> But they would be
> good for home defense. Since this guy was going to kill himself anyways,
> the fear of another person with a gun would not deter him.
Presumptuous of you. Why did he not wait for the cops and shoot them
to make them shoot him then?
THAT would prove he wasn't "afraid to die."
You mistake the motives for suicide.
My take is that, like at Columbine..where the shooters had every
intention of living on afterward, the reality of their acting out
eventually become apparent to them, and the horror of what they have
done overcomes them. THEN they decide to die.
He shot himself ONLY when the cops were closing in.
He was most certainly "afraid" of OTHERS with guns, lad. Stop and
think before babbling. Your babble will be more creative then.
Look up the Tacoma mall shooting in tpg.
Stop your wishful thinking. You cannot "remove the guns."
It is impossible for many reasons, some social, some practical
matters.
Mass murders are committed with explosives and flammables, and poisons
with even less effort.
Do a little searching.
Those who wish to kill can ONLY have their chances of success limited
by those with the means to stop them.
And in this country, the US, you cannot incarcerate someone
(theoretically) for intent, unless they are clear about the target(s).
Cho was not.
Until it was too late and the only thing, besides himself, that could
stop him, was someone with equal or better firepower.
Considering the number of groups you posted to, and I've kept in the
addy field, at least ONE person reading will one day face a deadly
force crises.
Will they and others die because they suffered the kind of thinking
errors you do?
I hope not.
Kane
>
> "Kane" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Kane
> "Mr. Y" <ndbanerjeevid...@insightbb.com> expounded:
>
> >Since this guy was going to kill himself anyways,
Dear Mr. Y,
By the by. NO suicide note was found in his room or at his parents
home.. Nothing. He was as likely to wish to continue to live as anyone
else, UNTIL he had killed and had to suddenly face the reality of his
actions. AND that armed LE was fast approaching.
> >the fear of another person with a gun would not deter him.
Nonsense. And irrelevant.
> Who cares about his fear? Another person with a gun could have
> stopped him. Doesn't matter if he feared it or not.
> --
> Ann
> e-mail address is not checked
Ann, I couldn't have said it more succinctly eloquent me very own
self.
Kane
Kane
> Kane wrote:
>
> > It only takes ONE.
>
> But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA.
Yep. So?
Making something "hard" to get, doesn't stop violence. Human history
is proof of that. We've always found ways to kill if we wished.
Poison, fire, explosives, they have all been used by individuals to
kill large numbers of people. Do a little reading on mass murder for a
clearer picture.
> Buy at a gun fair
> and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
Only if you buy from a private party. All retail sales (wholesale too
for that matter) are recorded and require background clearance and ID.
Handguns moreso in most places in the US. In some, you simply cannot
GET a handgun legally...though it appears you can. Try NYC for
instance, or DC.
Gun crime is there.
Why would I want to keep a defensive firearm in a safe where I can't
get to it immediately? Most folks involved in a hot entry B&E
(burglary) don't even know the thug's in the house until he IS. A
little late then, for some.
> > The obvious answer is the one we "gun nuts" know perfectly well by
> > statistical data analysis works. An armed citizenry reduces the 'urge'
> > when the person knows he or she can be shot down by a legally armed
> > citizen, and two, that care about that or not, the murderous rampage
> > will stop when the murderer is down and or dead.
>
> So your answer is more guns.
There are already all the guns we could want for defensive purposes.
The question is who has the guns at a given moment in time...like when
a madman comes into the room and starts shooting people
indiscriminately...or discriminately for that matter, as in Cho's
first murder.
Try reading this interesting account of an armed citizen that sadly,
was following the law at the time, and was unarmed in a similar
situation.
Among the comments you will find is this:
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or
she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive
citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over,
controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -- Rep. Suzanna Gratia
Hupp (Texas House of Representatives), leading concealed carry
advocate after when in 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order
to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her
parents, along with 21 others were gunned down in a mass shooting at a
local restaurant.
An aside: The gunman mentioned had to stop and reload a number of
times. Suzanna Hupp was known to be a very good shot. But no gun in
her hand, because of the same kind of stupid law that exists on the
Virginia Tech Campus.
> With so many guns in the US why is the
> USA not the safest country in the world.
For the same reason that some of the richest countries in the world
have abysmal poverty within. The guns are not in the right hands,
yet.
Oppressive dangerous laws keep that from happening.
Where gun laws have become less prohibitive, as our experience with
the proliferation NOW of 'shall issue' carry laws, violent crime tends
to drop.
>
> > No one could do it.
>
> > Imagine if that janitor you heard talk about being shot at about five
> > times, as he had to run away, had himself been properly armed, and
> > fired back.
>
> > Do a ng google on talk.politics.guns searching for "Tacoma Mall." The
> > armed citizen was hit even BEFORE he could get a shot off, but the
> > perp ran and hid and STOPPED SHOOTING PEOPLE.
You didn't did you?
What does that tell you about YOUR honesty, or lack thereof? Not
willing to look at factual information and still support your claims?
Give it a try.
> > It is wonderfuly sobering to the crazy to get return fire. They may
> > decide later to suicide by their own hand, but there is something
> > about someone ELSE shooting at you that tends to slow the scenario
> > down considerably.
>
> > A couple of school shootings in England, under similar circumstances,
> > that is that it was illegal to carry on schoolgrounds, ended with a
> > paroxism of gun control.
>
> > How's the UK doing today?
>
> > MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before.
>
> Gun deaths per 100,000
>
> United States 14.24
>
> England and Wales 0.41
You seem to be reading impaired. I didn't make any such claim of
comparison to different countries. I made one about a timeline...from
the past to the present.
"MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before."
See the "ever before?"
You literally changed the subject to avoid the question. How honest is
that?
We have always tended to be a nation with more violence, while the UK
and Wales, who now enjoy one of the highest violent crime rates in the
industrialized world, were one that peaceful of places.
Post the gun and violent crime rates from the past 30-40 years or
older. Go ahead.
I dare you.
> > This relatively peaceful nation, one of those with the LOWEST gun
> > crime in the world, how has among the highest violent crime rates in
> > the civilized, or Western, world.
Stop blaming guns. Blame the lack of them and the laws that prohibit
full self defense, including the use of deadly force against attackers
when one believes their or other's lives are in danger.
>
> > Thinking is the answer, not lockstep gun ban drooling.
Like I said.
> > What the university missed was sending out ARMED patrols to monitor
> > the other buildings quickly after the first incident of a killing.
>
> > But like cops everywhere, when the action starts, they tend to "clump"
> > at the site, then hang around getting their "hit" of adrenaline,
> > yakkin' it up, instead of going back out immediately on patrol, or
> > never coming to the incident site in the first place.
>
> > In this time and place, where both criminals and terrorists KNOW how
> > to create a situation to draw the cops off their primary target, or
> > their secondary one for that matter, having ANY slowdown in patrols
> > and changes in distribution of LE staff is totally stupid.
>
> > My we are slow to learn, eh?
>
> > Kane
Thanks for responding.
Kane
Kane
Show how that would be done in such a way as this person could not
have committed mass murder with a gun, or by other means. Fire,
explosives, poision.
You are right about the overkill in prevention though. Nothing is
perfect.
>
> Jeremy
Kane
You are mistaken. That was an illegal buy. He HAD been evaluated
apparently, thus on doing the required BG check it would have shown up
and the seller would not have made a legal sale.
While we don't expect the mentally ill to act rationally, HIS act of
buying was also illegal for HIM to do.
Kane
Kane
" In 1982 the heads of household in Kennesaw, Georgia (except
convicted criminals and those with religious objections) were required
to own at least one gun and ammunition. That year incidents of
burglary dropped 73% in Kennesaw. In 1991 and 1992 combined there were
three robberies, and from the passing of the law until ten years later
there were no murders. "
What do you suppose might have been going through the minds of
criminals around there?
edi...@netpath.net
> > If one could only buy shotguns, then they
> > would be harder to conceal and shoot up 32 people with.
and replied:
> Vise. Hacksaw. Very nasty weapon that would have done MORE carnage.
> Ever handled a short barrelled shotgun?
Also, a shotgun is a MUCH deadlier weapon than a handgun. 80% of
those shot with shotguns in America die - versus only under 30% of
those shot with handguns. If you are shot with a shotgun above the
waist from within 30 feet, your chance of survival approach zero.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
Kane
Aftermath Of Tragedy: GOA Defending Freedom
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Our hearts and prayers truly go out to all of those affected by Cho
Seung-Hui's evil actions. But not even senseless, brutal murder
justifies taking away the God-given rights of the law-abiding.
It is also worthwhile to note that Virginia Tech is -- because of
deliberate policies set by its administration -- a victim disarmament
zone, where even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit are
denied their right of self-defense.
In fact, pro-gun forces just last year tried to get the Virginia
legislature to address the problem. The bill to allow permit holders
to carry on state-supported college campuses died, due in no small
part to rabid opposition from Virginia Tech itself.
VT spokesman Larry Hincker put it this way after it became obvious
that the bill would not pass: "I'm sure the university community is
appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help
parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
The unfortunate irony continues when one recalls that not long ago,
two students at nearby Appalachian School of Law managed to stop a
gunman at that institution. Happily, they were able to dash
off-campus to retrieve their guns from their vehicles.
Four GOA spokesmen (one based in downtown D.C. and three at our
Springfield, VA office just outside the Beltway) are working non-stop
-- doing literally interview after interview -- making certain that
the above points reach the public.
GOA has appeared on Fox News, ABC, CNN, BBC -- lots of alphabet soup
networks -- as well as countless talk shows like Michael Reagan and
Lars Larson. GOA spokesmen have been heard in every major radio
market around the country and have done interviews with large print
media outlets, such as the Associated Press and U.S. News & World
Report.
The overall message that GOA is delivering is that gun prohibitions
are part of the problem, not the solution.
We can expect some forms of new gun control to be pushed in the U.S.
Congress. The Democrats control Congress, but more importantly,
anti-gun politicians control the Democrat party. If House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi -- certainly no friend of gun owners -- gives free rein
to virulently anti-gun House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI),
literally anything can make it to the floor of the full House.
Conyers' counterpart in the Senate is Judiciary Chairman Patrick
Leahy (D-VT), whose GOA rating of "F" is well-deserved. Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has also earned an F. Gun owners
will have to be especially vigilant in the coming weeks to block any
new attempts to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
And whereas the predictable media stampede to give voice to the
possibility of such new gun control is certainly there, it does not
seem to have the same "this simply must happen now" tone that it did
after the Columbine tragedy in 1999. Indeed, the idea of firearms for
self-defense in schools is gaining serious traction. Which should not
be all that surprising, given a Research 2000 poll which showed that
85% of Americans find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to
use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" in stopping a
massacre.
ACTION: For now, stay tuned for future alerts. (If any anti-gun bills
start moving on Capitol Hill, GOA will be counting on you to contact
your legislators in record numbers.) And pray for all of those whose
loved ones were injured or killed at Virginia Tech.
****************************
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.
The Autist formerly known as
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Cerebus Lothario" <cerebus...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:58msagF...@mid.individual.net...
Ann
>But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
>and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
Never mind the rest of your rant, but this is such utter BS I had to
address it. The gun show (not fair) myth is wrong. Have you ever
been to one (no, of course not, you're over the pond and spewing
whatever you've heard at one point or another). There are police
checks and waiting periods, all depending on which state you're
talking about. Virginia has gun laws. So does Colorado. Just which
one of those wonderful gun laws could stop a madman? Not a single
one.
But they can be used to stop honest, legitimate people from owning a
gun. Because you know what? Criminals and madmen don't follow laws.
People like me do. And my guns aren't being used to commit crimes.
Stephen Wilson
"Ann" <ann...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cfpc235mdtbhchn4u...@4ax.com...
I don't follow your argument at all.
A mad gunman goes on a killing spree.
Typical British response: this wouldn't have happened if guns were made
illegal
Typical American response: arm everyone with a gun so the killer can be shot
So explain something to me. Why do "honest, legitimate people" need to own a
gun? A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Kill.
Fact: in 1999 there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the USA. That's over
80 deaths a day. The number of non-fatal firearm injuries in 2000 was
75,685.
Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population in England & Wales = 0.22
Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population in the USA = 6.08
Wake up!
quaker
>
> It is also worthwhile to note that Virginia Tech is -- because of
> deliberate policies set by its administration -- a victim disarmament
> zone, where even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit are
> denied their right of self-defense.
Gimme a break!
>
had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
carnage. It's like the war mentality... we lose lives to save lives.
Really not very logical thinking and obviously a mentality of
destructive thinking.
RD (The Sandman)
@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 18, 5:24 am, Rob <U...@example.com> wrote:
>> Kane wrote:
>>
>> > It only takes ONE.
>>
>> But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA.
>
> Yep. So?
>
> Making something "hard" to get, doesn't stop violence. Human history
> is proof of that. We've always found ways to kill if we wished.
> Poison, fire, explosives, they have all been used by individuals to
> kill large numbers of people. Do a little reading on mass murder for a
> clearer picture.
>
>> Buy at a gun fair
>> and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>
> Only if you buy from a private party. All retail sales (wholesale too
> for that matter) are recorded and require background clearance and ID.
> Handguns moreso in most places in the US. In some, you simply cannot
> GET a handgun legally...though it appears you can. Try NYC for
> instance, or DC.
Or Chicago. Welcome back, Kane. How are things up in the mountains?
RD (The Sandman)
toto
>Dear Mr. Y,
>
>By the by. NO suicide note was found in his room or at his parents
>home.. Nothing. He was as likely to wish to continue to live as anyone
>else, UNTIL he had killed and had to suddenly face the reality of his
>actions. AND that armed LE was fast approaching.
Let's wait and see what the papers he sent to NBC reveal. Apparently,
those were sent between the two shootings (that's NBC's conjecture at
any rate)
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
Ann
>
>"Ann" <ann...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:cfpc235mdtbhchn4u...@4ax.com...
>> Rob <Us...@example.com> expounded:
>>
>>>But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
>>>and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>>
>> Never mind the rest of your rant, but this is such utter BS I had to
>> address it. The gun show (not fair) myth is wrong. Have you ever
>> been to one (no, of course not, you're over the pond and spewing
>> whatever you've heard at one point or another). There are police
>> checks and waiting periods, all depending on which state you're
>> talking about. Virginia has gun laws. So does Colorado. Just which
>> one of those wonderful gun laws could stop a madman? Not a single
>> one.
>>
>> But they can be used to stop honest, legitimate people from owning a
>> gun. Because you know what? Criminals and madmen don't follow laws.
>> People like me do. And my guns aren't being used to commit crimes.
>
>I don't follow your argument at all.
I'm sure you won't.
>
>A mad gunman goes on a killing spree.
>Typical British response: this wouldn't have happened if guns were made
>illegal
>Typical American response: arm everyone with a gun so the killer can be shot
>
Yea, well, I'm also a believer in the death penalty. I have no
problem whatsoever with a killer being killed. That way s/h/it won't
do it again.
>So explain something to me. Why do "honest, legitimate people" need to own a
>gun? A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Kill.
>
Because I have the right to defend myself. I realize the British have
given that right over to their government. I'm not going to get into
a statistic war with you, because I don't have the energy to look up
all of the links. You go right ahead and cite yours, because you
wouldn't believe anything else. Here are a few of mine:
http://www.gunblast.com/Gun_Facts.htm
From page 50 of the following:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf
Fact: Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime
especially violent crime has risen.
Fact: Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime is up 11%,
murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%.223
Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In
America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime
is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All
unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly
undercounting the amount of gun crime there. 224 To make matters
worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying
criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to
preserve tourism.225
Fact: A continuing parliamentary inquiry into the growing number of
black market weapons has concluded that there are more than three
million illegally held firearms in circulation - double the number
believed to have been held 10 years ago - and that criminals are more
willing than ever to use them. One in three criminals under the age of
25 possesses or has access to a firearm. 226
Fact: Handgun homicides in England and Wales reached an all-time high
in 2000, years after a virtual ban on private handgun ownership. More
than 3,000 crimes involving handguns were recorded in 1999-2000,
including the 42 homicides, 310 cases of attempted murder, 2,561
robberies and 204 burglaries.227
223 British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002
224 Gallant , Hills, Kopel, “Fear in Britain”, Independence Institute,
July 18, 2000
225 Daily Telegraph, 1996
226 Reported in The Guardian, September 3, 2000
227 “42 killed by handguns last year “, The Times, January 10, 2001.
Reporting on statistics supplied by the British Home Office.
Oh, lookie here, this is the update to above:
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.1/GunFacts4-1-Print.pdf
I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting from the update, it's more
telling. Read it and weep.
Another one: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
>Fact: in 1999 there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the USA. That's over
>80 deaths a day. The number of non-fatal firearm injuries in 2000 was
>75,685.
>
>Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population in England & Wales = 0.22
>Gun deaths per 100,000 of the population in the USA = 6.08
Demonstrably untrue.
>Wake up!
>
No, you wake up. The British have devolved to a former shadow of
themselves. You're government even wants to ban chef knives! You
can't defend yourselves (well, you can if you're rich enough, but
that's a whole 'nother rant). As a matter of fact you're changing
fairy tales so you won't offend anyone anymore. Enjoy your long,
lingering slumber......
Jerry Beeler
news:46268d7e$0$3157$ae4e...@news.nationwide.net...
> had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
> carnage. It's like the war mentality... we lose lives to save lives.
> Really not very logical thinking and obviously a mentality of destructive
> thinking.
I'm having a little trouble with this "more carnage" statement.
Scenario: I have a license for concealed carry. I'm walking across campus
and see the perp raise his weapon to fire on another student (or myself). I
draw my Kimber .45, insure I have a clear shot, within reasonable range, and
place a 165 gr Cor-bon +P JHP squarely in the center of his chest.
"Carnage" ended, perp is very dead.
Without my .45 I'm restricted to throwing rocks, and, even though he had a
9mm I've never been able to throw rocks with a muzzle velocity equivalent to
that of a 9mm.
Jerry
Kane
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> Kane <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1176915462.766974.48800
Thank you.
> How are things up in the mountains?
>
> RD (The Sandman)
Kind of "springy," kind of cold at night, warm to chilly in the
daytime. Don't know what to expect next.
But then I like living where no one takes notice of others around them
having guns, other than being thankful that should things go bad for
one, there are those that would help. And could help.
Best.
Kane
Kane
> Rob <U...@example.com> expounded:
Hell, cops hang out a gun shows looking for folks they know <nudge
nudge wink wink> that aren't normally allowed to have firearms. In
fact they are known to go through the parking lots and take down
license numbers. I've heard....<GASP!> they've been known to use a
digital camera and just take crowd and or individual pics as well.
There is very little gun buying at such events that turn up used later
in crime. And it's perfectly legal to buy there, from dealers or
individuals.
Buy the way, I think it's turning out that indeed Cho illegally
purchased from a dealer. He was adjudicated as a risk to himself in a
mental health evaluation. Should have put him on the database for bg
checks and flagged as a "no sale allowed."
Kane
quaker
With your highly unlikely scenerio as such. How would you know who is
the perp. Can you be sure? Likely he was not wearing a name tag "perp"
on him and could have gone to a greater extent to hide his identity.
In this case your "walking across campus and seeing the perp" scenerio
wasn't available for the taking.
You assume alot. Others with concealed weapons in that room pull a gun
and more than likely don't hit the guy, could hit someone else or are
more than likely running to avoid being shot by someone they cannot see.
You might incite the guy to further shooting while you and anyone else
who has a gun tries to stop him. This may not be possible but it's sure
more likely than what you propose.
Ever see the movie the Butter Battle. He may have also just gone right
over your concealed weapon with a bomb or something else had he thought
his angry rampage would be stopped by a campus with gun toting idealists.
Good try but the Lone Ranger was a myth.
edi...@netpath.net
> had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
> carnage.
Oh really, Quaker? Nonviolence only works when you have a safe
place to play chicken; that's why conscientious objectors in America's
wars were safe and healthy. It doesn't work at all when you have some
psycho in a room you are trapped in and he's shooting people. Only
fighting back works when you can't run away from the fight.
Rowley
on shows like "CSI" and "Law & Order" can show up and have everything
figured out and the bad guys apprehended in less than an hour (and still
have time for commercials) - but in real life, I would imagine that it
can take a bit longer.
Not sure when the MCPS Superintendent first heard of this and how fast
she was able to get information out. (maybe you could post a link to
your source)
This page gives the impression that it wasn't till later in the morning
that she shut the campuses down and notified the parents.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv/breaking/wb/113294
Martin
Bob LeChevalier
>"quaker" <notafan.org> wrote in message
>news:46268d7e$0$3157$ae4e...@news.nationwide.net...
>
>> had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
>> carnage. It's like the war mentality... we lose lives to save lives.
>> Really not very logical thinking and obviously a mentality of destructive
>> thinking.
>
>I'm having a little trouble with this "more carnage" statement.
>
>Scenario: I have a license for concealed carry. I'm walking across campus
>and see the perp raise his weapon to fire on another student (or myself). I
>draw my Kimber .45, insure I have a clear shot, within reasonable range, and
>place a 165 gr Cor-bon +P JHP squarely in the center of his chest.
>"Carnage" ended, perp is very dead.
Why is he going to give you a clear shot? First of all, he is doing
this inside a classroom and not in the open. He enters the room with
the gun out and starts shooting, probably aiming at you the teacher
first. But he is a nutcase, and doesn't care if he "has a clear
shot", whereas you being a responsible person aren't going to want to
hit the students, some of whom will be panicking and running around
and generally making sure that you don't get a good shot. Or he turns
it into a hostage situation, and holds a gun to someone's head (using
them as a human shield) till you drop your weapon (and then shoots you
since you are obviously more dangerous than most).
The sorts of people who do things like this are insane, not stupid.
And they will have made their plans based on the what they can
reasonably expect in response. If they expect that there will be
gun-owners, their tactics will be different.
>Without my .45 I'm restricted to throwing rocks, and, even though he had a
>9mm I've never been able to throw rocks with a muzzle velocity equivalent to
>that of a 9mm.
I suspect that if everyone had guns and a high percentage were willing
to use them in such a situation, the violence level would simply
escalate, and we'd start seeing the sorts of suicide bombers that
Israel (and Iraq) have to deal with. Violence only begets violence.
lojbab
Kane
> "Jerry Beeler" <jerrybee...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >"quaker" <notafan.org> wrote in message
> >news:46268d7e$0$3157$ae4e...@news.nationwide.net...
>
> >> had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
> >> carnage. It's like the war mentality... we lose lives to save lives.
> >> Really not very logical thinking and obviously a mentality of destructive
> >> thinking.
>
> >I'm having a little trouble with this "more carnage" statement.
>
> >Scenario: I have a license for concealed carry. I'm walking across campus
> >and see the perp raise his weapon to fire on another student (or myself). I
> >draw my Kimber .45, insure I have a clear shot, within reasonable range, and
> >place a 165 gr Cor-bon +P JHP squarely in the center of his chest.
> >"Carnage" ended, perp is very dead.
>
> Why is he going to give you a clear shot?
Because I am not going to make my presence and my armaments too
obvious.
And he's unlikely BE THERE, given the change in scenario that comes
with knowing anyone COULD be defensively armed. You aren't thinking.
> First of all, he is doing
> this inside a classroom and not in the open.
Same rule applies. I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately. You watch too much
TV, and have the mindset for death...yours. And others.
Bet you thought I or any other trained shooter that carries for
defense would act like the "moovys," didn'tcha?
> He enters the room with
> the gun out and starts shooting, probably aiming at you the teacher
> first.
I'm not the teacher. But even if I were you presume that if he shot
and hit me I'd be completely and totally instantly incapacitated. You
are wrong, of course, like all those that fancy they "know" about guns
and how they work on human targets.
Even people with headshots, severly wounded have managed to draw and
fire their weapon and take down the perp.
Year after year you yahoos come here to tpg, and spout without
bothering to do the least bit of research...even HERE in the ng.
If you bothered to use google groups search on these issues you'd find
out a lot of information that would KILL your arguments, sir.
Immediately...like the information I just gave you. People that are
shot do NOT immediately die in most instances.
>But he is a nutcase, and doesn't care if he "has a clear
> shot", whereas you being a responsible person aren't going to want
> to
> hit the students, some of whom will be panicking and running around
> and generally making sure that you don't get a good shot.
If he is shooting during the "panicking," sir, I will NOT wait for a
good 'clear' shot while he's killing people. I'll shot to stop him.
> Or he turns
> it into a hostage situation,
He's a dead man if he does that. Most defensive gun owers, who carry,
are well aware of the dangers in a hostage situation if it's allowed
to continue even a few seconds.
> and holds a gun to someone's head (using
> them as a human shield) till you drop your weapon (and then shoots you
> since you are obviously more dangerous than most).
You honestly think I'd drop my gun? I'd shoot right through the
hostage, wouldn't you?
And I'm a good enough shot to take the perp in the head, if need be.
> The sorts of people who do things like this are insane, not stupid.
You have NO proof they are not also stupid. I have proof they ARE, at
the same or greater rate than the general public. Millions of DGUs
that go to the citizen, against the perp, shows damn well that is
true.
> And they will have made their plans based on the what they can
> reasonably expect in response. If they expect that there will be
> gun-owners, their tactics will be different.
Yep. So?
Here's the ticket.
Where shall issue carry is legal, not everyone carries. The perp has
to, in such situations, try to figure out which of the large group is
armed and which is not.
Personally if I was the hostage and a gun owner had drawn and was
aiming at the thug my response would be "Shoot the Fucker NOW!"
I'd take my chance with the medics saving me later, rather than face
the almost certain outcome of the perp shooting me at close range in
the head at his leisure.
You don't understand the odds about life, do you, boy?
> >Without my .45 I'm restricted to throwing rocks, and, even though he had a
> >9mm I've never been able to throw rocks with a muzzle velocity equivalent to
> >that of a 9mm.
>
> I suspect
That's because you don't think in real terms. You are thinking
errored.
In the real world your little BS below would not happen.
> that if everyone had guns
Who said "everyone had guns," son?
In shall issue states you might find, in any large group, about 1% or
less armed by choice. At the outside maybe two in a group of say 25 to
30, in a lecture hall on a campus.
> and a high percentage were willing
> to use them in such a situation,
Okay, two, the entire likely number present that would be armed if it
were allowed...just as it is where it IS allowed. About 2 people max.
That would be extraordinary, by the way, in so small a group.
> the violence level would simply
> escalate,
2/3s of which would be directed at the perp.
Even if only ONE person present was armed and used his gun there is
something wonderfully sobering, while unnerving as hell, to be shot
at. Tends to spoil the perp's deliberate execution of people.
Pretty simple when you think about the REAL world and how things
ACTUALLY happen, child.
> and we'd start seeing the sorts of suicide bombers that
> Israel (and Iraq) have to deal with. Violence only begets violence.
Ooooo....such wise words. May I quote you?
>
> lojbab
Yes, we might just see suicide bombers, but they aren't created by the
circumstance of potential victims fighting back. Their motivations
come from other sources.
Are you really going to try and defend the idea that the more helpless
we present ourselves to those that threaten violence, the more likely
we will survive?
The FBI has figures showing the exact opposite. That fighting back,
EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT ARMED, against a violent attacker greatly
increases the survival rate, and reduces the injury rate and severity
of the intended victim.
No, child, being a lamb may LOOK cute to you, but not to the
predator...for him or her it's just an easy meal.
Tell you what. You go your way, and I'll go mine, and if we are
together when a Cho shows up, you may hope and pray that was one of
the days, about 4 out of any seven, that I carry.
You MIGHT just survive because of me.
At least your odds would be better.
I still wish that janitor they interviewed had come to the scene with
a gun in hand. He was shot at five times and the perp, Cho, missed
every shot.
If the janitor had had a gun? Hmmmm....my bet is many more would have
lived.
Let me know when you stop hallucinating about what happens in violent
situations.
Kane
Mark Probert
> Rob <Us...@example.com> expounded:
>
>> But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
>> and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>
> Never mind the rest of your rant, but this is such utter BS I had to
> address it. The gun show (not fair) myth is wrong. Have you ever
> been to one (no, of course not, you're over the pond and spewing
> whatever you've heard at one point or another). There are police
> checks and waiting periods, all depending on which state you're
> talking about. Virginia has gun laws. So does Colorado. Just which
> one of those wonderful gun laws could stop a madman? Not a single
In NY, he would have been stopped cold. You cannot purchase a handgun
just because you want one. It must be justified, and far more
comprehensive background check is required.
Raving
wrote:
> Ann wrote:
> > Rob <U...@example.com> expounded:
>
> >> But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
> >> and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>
> > Never mind the rest of your rant, but this is such utter BS I had to
> > address it. The gun show (not fair) myth is wrong. Have you ever
> > been to one (no, of course not, you're over the pond and spewing
> > whatever you've heard at one point or another). There are police
> > checks and waiting periods, all depending on which state you're
> > talking about. Virginia has gun laws. So does Colorado. Just which
> > one of those wonderful gun laws could stop a madman? Not a single
> > one.I
>
> In NY, he would have been stopped cold. You cannot purchase a handgun
> just because you want one. It must be justified, and far more
> comprehensive background check is required.
Pity. Does the NRA know about this?
Raving
> "Stephen Wilson" <sr.wil...@ntlworld.com> expounded:> >> Rob <U...@example.com> expounded:
Mark Probert
> On Apr 19, 12:04 am, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel.com>
> wrote:
>> Ann wrote:
>>> Rob <U...@example.com> expounded:
>>>> But that one seems to be so easy to get in the USA. Buy at a gun fair
>>>> and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>>> Never mind the rest of your rant, but this is such utter BS I had to
>>> address it. The gun show (not fair) myth is wrong. Have you ever
>>> been to one (no, of course not, you're over the pond and spewing
>>> whatever you've heard at one point or another). There are police
>>> checks and waiting periods, all depending on which state you're
>>> talking about. Virginia has gun laws. So does Colorado. Just which
>>> one of those wonderful gun laws could stop a madman? Not a single
>>> one.I
>> In NY, he would have been stopped cold. You cannot purchase a handgun
>> just because you want one. It must be justified, and far more
>> comprehensive background check is required.
>
>
> Pity. Does the NRA know about this?
I am sure the gun-nuts do. They have opposed every attempt to tighten up
the laws in NY even more.
Chookie
Kane <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Same rule applies. I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
> he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately. You watch too much
> TV, and have the mindset for death...yours. And others.
Gee, I thought it was only on TV that people were "dropped" like that ...
Sounds like you've been watching it too. Unless you have done it a lot, you
are likely to have some difficulty with shooting a real live human dead, even
if he is a baddie. Also, the stress of dealing with a nutcase is a bit
different from shooting targets on a rifle range or hunting.
> Bet you thought I or any other trained shooter that carries for
> defense would act like the "moovys," didn'tcha?
>
> I'm not the teacher. But even if I were you presume that if he shot
> and hit me I'd be completely and totally instantly incapacitated. You
> are wrong, of course, like all those that fancy they "know" about guns
> and how they work on human targets.
>
> Even people with headshots, severly wounded have managed to draw and
> fire their weapon and take down the perp.
Um. So how do you know that the perp won't be able to keep shooting after
*you've* shot him, then?
And the larger question is: how do you know that you won't BE the perp next
time? What guarantee do we have that you won't go nuts and start shooting
people?
--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue
Rob
> On Apr 18, 5:24 am, Rob <U...@example.com> wrote:
>> Kane wrote:
>>
>>> It only takes ONE.
>
>
> Making something "hard" to get, doesn't stop violence. Human history
> is proof of that. We've always found ways to kill if we wished.
> Poison, fire, explosives, they have all been used by individuals to
> kill large numbers of people. Do a little reading on mass murder for a
> clearer picture.
Do you really think that access to weapons makes no difference?
If the the local Quiki Mart sold surface to air missiles, Rocket
propelled grenades, Machine guns would that be OK ?
It sounds like I am being flippant. In Australia if you want to buy a
rifle you will have to have to do a written safety test get a photo
license and be interviewed by the Police. Police have the right to
visit your house and inspect your storage of your rifle in locked steel
box. It takes about two months to get your license.
You must produce that license even when buying ammunition.
No you cannot buy hand gun ammunition with a rifle license.
Hand Guns that is a whole new world. You have to have a have a gun safe
installed. You also have to be the member of a gun club and you have to
to keep going regularly or you lose your license
I doubt that the Virginia Tech perp would have been able to go through
these hoops.
30 extra people alive today
>
>> Buy at a gun faires
>> and you don't need a Police check, A safe, to put it in or even ID
>
> Only if you buy from a private party.
Private party? What does that mean? Bottom line the answer is Yes you
can buy a hand guns, assault rifles with 40 round magazines with no ID
no police check legally.
In Australia if you want sell your gun you have to sell it back to a
registered gun dealer you can't on sell it yourself.
> All retail sales (wholesale too
> for that matter) are recorded and require background clearance and ID.
> Handguns moreso in most places in the US. In some, you simply cannot
> GET a handgun legally...though it appears you can. Try NYC for
> instance, or DC.
>
> Gun crime is there.
Gun laws must be National and uniform. If can buy your hand guns with
no ID at gun fairs in Virginia and drive home.
> Why would I want to keep a defensive firearm in a safe where I can't
> get to it immediately? Most folks involved in a hot entry B&E
> (burglary) don't even know the thug's in the house until he IS. A
> little late then, for some.
How likely is it that you will use it for self defence in a home
invasion? More likely your home will be broken into when you are at
work, toss your house find your gun and the Thief use it to mug, rape or
kill some other poor bastard.
Since you posted to misc.kids it would be far more likely that if you
have kids they will get hold of your guns. You may be a responsible
owner but Homer Simpson down the road leaves his gun out and Bart takes
it to school..........
>
>>> The obvious answer is the one we "gun nuts" know perfectly well by
>>> statistical data analysis works. An armed citizenry reduces the 'urge'
>>> when the person knows he or she can be shot down by a legally armed
>>> citizen, and two, that care about that or not, the murderous rampage
>>> will stop when the murderer is down and or dead.
>> So your answer is more guns.
>
> There are already all the guns we could want for defensive purposes.
> The question is who has the guns at a given moment in time...like when
> a madman comes into the room and starts shooting people
> indiscriminately...or discriminately for that matter, as in Cho's
> first murder.
>
> Try reading this interesting account of an armed citizen that sadly,
> was following the law at the time, and was unarmed in a similar
> situation.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3yel4y
>
> Among the comments you will find is this:
>
> "How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or
> she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive
> citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over,
> controlled, supervised, and taken care of." -- Rep. Suzanna Gratia
> Hupp (Texas House of Representatives), leading concealed carry
> advocate after when in 1991, after leaving her gun in her car in order
> to comply with the law, Suzanna watched helplessly as both her
> parents, along with 21 others were gunned down in a mass shooting at a
> local restaurant.
>
> An aside: The gunman mentioned had to stop and reload a number of
> times. Suzanna Hupp was known to be a very good shot. But no gun in
> her hand, because of the same kind of stupid law that exists on the
> Virginia Tech Campus.
>
She left her gun in her car. What if her car had been stolen or broken
into? She could have been the cause of another massacre.
On a micro level I can see that what you say has merit. So long as a
responsible person has it.
Gun control IMO works better
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html
>> With so many guns in the US why is the
>> USA not the safest country in the world.
>
> For the same reason that some of the richest countries in the world
> have abysmal poverty within. The guns are not in the right hands,
> yet.
>
> Oppressive dangerous laws keep that from happening.
>
> Where gun laws have become less prohibitive, as our experience with
> the proliferation NOW of 'shall issue' carry laws, violent crime tends
> to drop.
I don't want to go to work "packing heat" every day just on the off
chance that I would need to prevent a once in a life time massacre.
I was tired after work and my 18 month old son got hold of my mobile
phone with out me knowing. I would have thought that the lock would
have stopped him but he managed to phone a friend of mine.
>>> No one could do it.
>>> Imagine if that janitor you heard talk about being shot at about five
>>> times, as he had to run away, had himself been properly armed, and
>>> fired back.
>>> Do a ng google on talk.politics.guns searching for "Tacoma Mall." The
>>> armed citizen was hit even BEFORE he could get a shot off, but the
>>> perp ran and hid and STOPPED SHOOTING PEOPLE.
>
> You didn't did you?
>
> What does that tell you about YOUR honesty, or lack thereof? Not
> willing to look at factual information and still support your claims?
> Give it a try.
I don't doubt that what what you said was true, but you are correct I
did not check it.
So a Janitor has to buy an expensive gun, regularly practice with it,
take it to work every day for a once in a life time massacre.
With the value of hindsight it would have been a good idea.
As long as his children did not get hold of it first.
A better idea would have been to stop Cho from getting a gun.
He sounds like he was severely mentally ill.
Kayla Rolland was six years old killed in a Michigan school by another
six year old who got hold of his Uncles gun.
Until the technology exists for guns to be locked to one person to use
(DNA test alla Judge Dred and DNA in the bullets). I am against it.
>
>>> It is wonderfuly sobering to the crazy to get return fire. They may
>>> decide later to suicide by their own hand, but there is something
>>> about someone ELSE shooting at you that tends to slow the scenario
>>> down considerably.
>>> A couple of school shootings in England, under similar circumstances,
>>> that is that it was illegal to carry on schoolgrounds, ended with a
>>> paroxism of gun control.
>>> How's the UK doing today?
>>> MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before.
>> Gun deaths per 100,000
>>
>> United States 14.24
>>
>> England and Wales 0.41
>
> You seem to be reading impaired. I didn't make any such claim of
> comparison to different countries. I made one about a timeline...from
> the past to the present.
>
> "MORE GUN RELATED AND OVERALL VIOLENT CRIME than ever before."
>
> See the "ever before?"
Please cite.
More can mean anything. 0.40 to 0.41 per 100,000
In Australia the reverse has happened.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html
>
> You literally changed the subject to avoid the question. How honest is
> that?
>
Not intentionally. The implication was that the increase of violent
crime (If that is what happened - you did not cite) in the UK was
because of the change in the gun laws I think a very hard thing prove.
I thought that the great difference in gun death would speak for it self
obviously I was wrong.
The USA has 34 times the rate gun deaths than the UK and your solution
is to give the UK people more guns?
13.47 as opposed to 0.40 figures are different because I found more
recent figures
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html
> We have always tended to be a nation with more violence, while the UK
> and Wales, who now enjoy one of the highest violent crime rates in the
> industrialized world, were one that peaceful of places.
Getting into a punch up at a pub is not in the same league as getting
shot. I have been to London recently I felt a hell of a lot safer
there than I did in the US.
>
> Post the gun and violent crime rates from the past 30-40 years or
> older. Go ahead.
>
> I dare you.
Please post your information, but I would not be looking to the US for
guidance in this issue.
>
>>> This relatively peaceful nation, one of those with the LOWEST gun
>>> crime in the world, how has among the highest violent crime rates in
>>> the civilized, or Western, world.
>
> Stop blaming guns. Blame the lack of them and the laws that prohibit
> full self defense, including the use of deadly force against attackers
> when one believes their or other's lives are in danger.
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
You do not need an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine for hunting or
self defence.
I feel safer knowing that because hand guns are relatively hard to get
in Australia and I will usually be able to deal with self defence
situations. It is a lot easier to deal with a person carrying a knife,
or to run away from them.
>>> Thinking is the answer, not lockstep gun ban drooling.
>
> Like I said.
>
>>> What the university missed was sending out ARMED patrols to monitor
>>> the other buildings quickly after the first incident of a killing.
>>> But like cops everywhere, when the action starts, they tend to "clump"
>>> at the site, then hang around getting their "hit" of adrenaline,
>>> yakkin' it up, instead of going back out immediately on patrol, or
>>> never coming to the incident site in the first place.
>>> In this time and place, where both criminals and terrorists KNOW how
>>> to create a situation to draw the cops off their primary target, or
>>> their secondary one for that matter, having ANY slowdown in patrols
>>> and changes in distribution of LE staff is totally stupid.
>>> My we are slow to learn, eh?
>>> Kane
>
Look I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong.
Like a lot of difficult situations it is a question of the lesser of two
evils. Black market guns will exist in every country. The fewer guns
in circulation the more expensive the black market guns, the less
likely your gun will be stolen and become a black market gun.
The less likely a cop will accidentally shoot you because you are
reaching for your wallet when they thought you were reaching for your gun.
I concede however that it would a truly terrible thing to watch your
friends and family killed in front of you and be helpless to do anything
about it. If I lived in a high gun area I would think about getting
one. I don't think I would like it, I would be frightened that my son
would somehow get hold of it or that I would lose it.
Out of interest do you carry a hand gun on you every day, all day?
> Thanks for responding.
Thanks for an intelligent civil discussion.
>
> Kane
>
>
Raving
> On Apr 17, 3:51?pm, "Angelocracy.com" <gmail987654...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Virginia Tech Shooting
>
> > At Virginia Tech some of the students moved tables in front of the
> > door to try to keep the gunman from comming in. Because there was no
> > way to lock the door. A few years back there was a shooting at a
> > college or University in Canada. Can't remember the name of the
> > school. But today because of that shooting all class room doors at
> > that school can be lock and only a teacher can unlock them. The same
> > should be done at all schools here in the USA. Also there should be a
> > panic button in all classrooms and other parts of the schools. Also
> > security cameras.
>
> > was no alert sent out to students about the shooting at 7:15 until
> > 9:26. People were still coming on to Virginia Tech. Students were
> > still make there way to class. After the 2 shooting at 9:45 a lock
> > down order was given about 15 min later. If a lock down order was
> > given right after the frist shooting at 7:15 the death toll would have
> > been much less. The school and the police drop the ball on this one.
> > In the weeks to come people will lose there jobs over this. There will
> > be many law suits.
>
> >http://angelocracy.com/
>
> >http://angelocracy.blogspot.com/
>
> Boring. This clutters up the British news for days. The same old
> stories from the USA.
>
> America wants to mix prozac and guns? Well, now they got prozac and
> guns. Self-made Nutters.
Congratulations on the five star posting!
Bob LeChevalier
>On Apr 18, 7:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>> "Jerry Beeler" <jerrybee...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >"quaker" <notafan.org> wrote in message
>> >news:46268d7e$0$3157$ae4e...@news.nationwide.net...
>>
>> >> had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
>> >> carnage. It's like the war mentality... we lose lives to save lives.
>> >> Really not very logical thinking and obviously a mentality of destructive
>> >> thinking.
>>
>> >I'm having a little trouble with this "more carnage" statement.
>>
>> >Scenario: I have a license for concealed carry. I'm walking across campus
>> >and see the perp raise his weapon to fire on another student (or myself). I
>> >draw my Kimber .45, insure I have a clear shot, within reasonable range, and
>> >place a 165 gr Cor-bon +P JHP squarely in the center of his chest.
>> >"Carnage" ended, perp is very dead.
>>
>> Why is he going to give you a clear shot?
>
>Because I am not going to make my presence and my armaments too
>obvious.
How will you manage this in a classroom where he comes in shooting at
you.
>And he's unlikely BE THERE, given the change in scenario that comes
>with knowing anyone COULD be defensively armed. You aren't thinking.
Tell it to all the dead defensively-armed soldiers in Iraq. By your
reasoning, no criminals would ever shoot people in Iraq because it is
too likely that there will be someone who will shoot back. It hasn't
stopped the shooting
>> First of all, he is doing
>> this inside a classroom and not in the open.
>
>Same rule applies. I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
>he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately.
You have to pull the gun to shoot it, and his is already out and
firing.
>Bet you thought I or any other trained shooter that carries for
>defense would act like the "moovys," didn'tcha?
I have no idea how you would act. But if you are in position to stop
the shooting, that means that you are already in the classroom as a
student or the teacher, and he is shooting at you before you have a
chance to get your weapon out.
>> He enters the room with
>> the gun out and starts shooting, probably aiming at you the teacher
>> first.
>
>I'm not the teacher.
Then you are a student and probably sitting down (which would slow
your ability to react), or you aren't in the room at all.
>But even if I were you presume that if he shot
>and hit me I'd be completely and totally instantly incapacitated.
Why would I make that assumption?
You on the other hand were making the assumption that you are not at
all impaired, and have the time to shoot carefully.
>Even people with headshots, severly wounded have managed to draw and
>fire their weapon and take down the perp.
I'm sure it can happen. But there are a lot of trained soldiers armed
more heavily than you are who are getting shot in Iraq, and for every
one of them, there are dozens of less-trained people, many of who have
guns of their own, getting killed in the streets. There is no
shortage of guns in Iraq, but there is little abatement of violence.
>Year after year you yahoos come here to tpg, and spout without
>bothering to do the least bit of research...even HERE in the ng.
I am posting in the education newsgroup. I don't give a damn about
tpg.
>If you bothered to use google groups search on these issues you'd find
>out a lot of information that would KILL your arguments, sir.
>Immediately...like the information I just gave you. People that are
>shot do NOT immediately die in most instances.
Reports are that of 15-20 in the classrooms, only a few left the rooms
alive, some of them by playing dead.
>>But he is a nutcase, and doesn't care if he "has a clear
>> shot", whereas you being a responsible person aren't going to want
>> to
>> hit the students, some of whom will be panicking and running around
>> and generally making sure that you don't get a good shot.
>
>If he is shooting during the "panicking," sir, I will NOT wait for a
>good 'clear' shot while he's killing people. I'll shot to stop him.
And thus increase both the panicking and possibly killing an innocent
or two yourself.
>> Or he turns
>> it into a hostage situation,
>
>He's a dead man if he does that. Most defensive gun owers, who carry,
>are well aware of the dangers in a hostage situation if it's allowed
>to continue even a few seconds.
So you consider yourself more expert in handling a hostage situation
than a trained SWAT team?
>> and holds a gun to someone's head (using
>> them as a human shield) till you drop your weapon (and then shoots you
>> since you are obviously more dangerous than most).
>
>You honestly think I'd drop my gun? I'd shoot right through the
>hostage, wouldn't you?
Since I don't have a gun, I wouldn't have to choose to kill an
innocent person.
>You don't understand the odds about life, do you, boy?
They are a lot lower when guns are involved.
lojbab
Emma Anne
> Buy the way, I think it's turning out that indeed Cho illegally
> purchased from a dealer. He was adjudicated as a risk to himself in a
> mental health evaluation. Should have put him on the database for bg
> checks and flagged as a "no sale allowed."
It certainly should have. Someone messed up there. I would also like
to think that when this sort of person tries to buy a gun, law
enforcement is notified, but I don't know if that is true.
Stephen Wilson
>>
> Yea, well, I'm also a believer in the death penalty. I have no
> problem whatsoever with a killer being killed. That way s/h/it won't
> do it again.
I've 3 arguments against this:
1) If it is found that the person found guilty was actually innocent, there
is no way of bringing them back to life.
2) Someone has to kill the killer. I wonder how it affects their mental
state of health
3) Surely it's better to find out why people feel the need to kill in the
first place and stop it happening rather than have to enforce a death
penalty after the fact.
>>So explain something to me. Why do "honest, legitimate people" need to own
>>a
>>gun? A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Kill.
>>
> Because I have the right to defend myself.
I really feel sorry that you feel the need for this. I don't own a gun. But
then, I walk through the streets of the city I live in without fearing for
my life. In my whole life, only one person I know has ever been shot. And
that was accidentally, when a bullet from an airgun hit his lung.
Fortunately he survived.
You do own a gun. You consider yourself law-abiding. But it only takes a
moment's rage to do something you wouldn't under different circumstances.
Maybe drinking too much. Maybe snapping when under stress. And unless you
keep that gun under lock and key, there is always the chance that yourself
or someone else (say a curious child) accidentally fires it.
The USA instituted the great war on terror. The sad fact is that Americans
kill far more Americans than anyone else.
I guess you're happy living where you do. I know I don't feel comfortable
walking the streets of Washington DC, Philadelphia, Dallas, Los Angeles,
Chicago, etc. by day, let alone by night. But then I wouldn't choose to live
in places like that either. Maybe owning a gun makes you feel safe and
secure. I'm just glad that you don't live anywhere near me.
Rob
> On Apr 18, 12:34 pm, Kane <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> quoted "Mr. Y":
>>> If one could only buy shotguns, then they
>>> would be harder to conceal and shoot up 32 people with.
>
> and replied:
>> Vise. Hacksaw. Very nasty weapon that would have done MORE carnage.
>> Ever handled a short barrelled shotgun?
>
> Also, a shotgun is a MUCH deadlier weapon than a handgun. 80% of
> those shot with shotguns in America die - versus only under 30% of
> those shot with handguns. If you are shot with a shotgun above the
> waist from within 30 feet, your chance of survival approach zero.
They are not that quick to reload. 2 shots at that is it.
You would be a sitting duck when you break the barrel pull out the old
cartridges and fumble around putting the new cartridges in.
I am surprised at the statistic. I know of a professional hit with
shotgun in Melbourne that was unsuccessful at close range.
Two hand guns
Virginia Gun laws
No waiting period.
No locking devices
No Licence
No Safety test.
9mm Glock automatic with 19 rounds in each clip. 4 spare preloaded clips
for easy reload.
Why muck about with a hacksaw?
Rob
A waiting period would have given a chance for the mistake to be found.
Rosalie B.
>
>"Ann" <ann...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:vq8d239k4eethhr8a...@4ax.com...
>>>
>> Yea, well, I'm also a believer in the death penalty. I have no
>> problem whatsoever with a killer being killed. That way s/h/it won't
>> do it again.
>
>I've 3 arguments against this:
>1) If it is found that the person found guilty was actually innocent, there
>is no way of bringing them back to life.
Agree with this
>2) Someone has to kill the killer. I wonder how it affects their mental
>state of health
This has been a problem for the ages. There are places in Europe
where the hangman's house is in the middle of a river so that no one
has to live next door to him. Yes the executioners often have mental
problems as a result.
>3) Surely it's better to find out why people feel the need to kill in the
>first place and stop it happening rather than have to enforce a death
>penalty after the fact.
>
Not with you here - doubt the causes will be found and vigorously
doubt that it can be stopped. Killing has been with us since Cain and
Able.
>>>So explain something to me. Why do "honest, legitimate people" need to own
>>>a
>>>gun? A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Kill.
>>>
>> Because I have the right to defend myself.
>
>I really feel sorry that you feel the need for this. I don't own a gun. But
>then, I walk through the streets of the city I live in without fearing for
>my life. In my whole life, only one person I know has ever been shot. And
>that was accidentally, when a bullet from an airgun hit his lung.
>Fortunately he survived.
>
A co-worker of mine was shot when someone tried to hold him up as he
walked home. The bullet only got him in the shoulder.
A mentally challenged teen was shot and killed and found in the woods
behind my house.
A former student of mine robbed a bank and killed the asst. manager. I
guess in that case I knew the person who did the killing rather than
the victim.
A classmate of mine's mother was shot and killed by a burglar. He was
in my class from kindergarten to 10th grade.
I didn't know him, but my MIL's father was shot in the course of a
robbery of his store.
A friend of mine committed suicide with a gun.
But I'm probably older than you are and have had more chance to know
someone who has had a problem with a gun.
I have some target pistols which the government does not consider to
be weapons. We do target shooting and I'm a pretty good shot.
I wouldn't have a gun if I did not feel that I could handle and keep
it safely. DD#2 does have guns and her son and husband go hunting at
least once a year (usually quite successfully).
<snip>
>I guess you're happy living where you do. I know I don't feel comfortable
>walking the streets of Washington DC, Philadelphia, Dallas, Los Angeles,
>Chicago, etc. by day, let alone by night. But then I wouldn't choose to live
>in places like that either.
I don't know where you are from, but I have lived in Baltimore, and
Philadelphia and dd#3 lives near Dallas and dd#2 lives in Miami and I
don't think those places are especially dangerous if you know what you
are doing. Of course there are places in those cities that I wouldn't
go at night or alone, but not living there is no guarantee of safety
and sometimes a person has no choice.
Blacksburg is a very small city in Virginia (39,500, but I don't know
if they count the 26,000 students in there or not). My own town where
the boy was killed in the woods behind my house is very small (under
2000 people)
Jerry Beeler
>I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
> he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately.
Bingo.
> People that are
> shot do NOT immediately die in most instances.
Precisely - that's why I would go for a "center of mass" shot and take him
off his feet ASAP - disorient him - - Mr. Kimber has chambered another round
and I'm back on target relatively quickly.
> If he is shooting during the "panicking," sir, I will NOT wait for a
> good 'clear' shot while he's killing people. I'll shot to stop him.
Indeed ... definition of "clear shot" notwithstanding I'd like to think that
if someone was immediately behind the perp I could "clear" my shot so that
penetration would not take out an innocent. I'm not nearly as concerned
about penetration with the .45 as I would be with a 9mm.
> And I'm a good enough shot to take the perp in the head, if need be.
If need be it certainly should be. As you say, the object is to stop him.
Period.
> Even if only ONE person present was armed and used his gun there is
> something wonderfully sobering, while unnerving as hell, to be shot
> at. Tends to spoil the perp's deliberate execution of people.
"unnerving as hell" ... that's an understatement - when the lead starts
going coming toward the perp - it would probably change his perspective,
significantly - in all probabiltity the perp would direct his fire toward
the armed individual as opposed to his continued "deliberate execution of
people". I'm not a hero but would damned sure rather (if I'm armed) that he
direct his fire toward me as opposed to unarmed students!
Jerry
Ann
>I guess you're happy living where you do.
I live in Massachusetts, with guns locked securely unless on my
person. Yes, I am very happy where I am. If I go into the city I'll
bring a small pocket gun. I dislike all cities.
>I know I don't feel comfortable
>walking the streets of Washington DC, Philadelphia, Dallas, Los Angeles,
>Chicago, etc. by day, let alone by night.
Then don't. It isn't smart to do so anyways.
> But then I wouldn't choose to live
>in places like that either.
Neither do I.
>Maybe owning a gun makes you feel safe and
>secure.
I know it's there if I need it. I rarely do.
> I'm just glad that you don't live anywhere near me.
I'm thrilled I don't live anywhere near you. That would mean I lived
in a place where the nanny state takes care of me. I'm perfectly able
to take care of myself.
Rob
I don't think you need a gun.
Your per
Ann
Kane
> In article <1176954687.807345.24...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Kane <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Same rule applies. I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
> > he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately. You watch too much
> > TV, and have the mindset for death...yours. And others.
>
> Gee, I thought it was only on TV that people were "dropped" like that ...
way to.
> Sounds like you've been watching it too. Unless you have done it a lot, you
> are likely to have some difficulty with shooting a real live human dead, even
> if he is a baddie.
So that should deter me from attempting to do so when he is killing
people? Hmmmm..you ARE out of touch with reality, or you are a
coward.
> Also, the stress of dealing with a nutcase is a bit
> different from shooting targets on a rifle range or hunting.
Yep. So I should, even though armed, just walk away for fear I might
fail. I see. 0:-]
> > Bet you thought I or any other trained shooter that carries for
> > defense would act like the "moovys," didn'tcha?
>
> > I'm not the teacher. But even if I were you presume that if he shot
> > and hit me I'd be completely and totally instantly incapacitated. You
> > are wrong, of course, like all those that fancy they "know" about guns
> > and how they work on human targets.
>
> > Even people with headshots, severly wounded have managed to draw and
> > fire their weapon and take down the perp.
>
> Um. So how do you know that the perp won't be able to keep shooting after
> *you've* shot him, then?
I don't. So what? He probably will, for that matter. So I should get a
truck and run over him instead?
> And the larger question is: how do you know that you won't BE the perp next
> time?
Because I'm neither a criminal nor violent. But then, no one knows the
answer to that for sure.
Again, so what? We aren't talking about then, but about NOW.
> What guarantee do we have that you won't go nuts and start shooting
> people?
I have no such guarantee. On the other hand I've had a very long life
in which I've never done that. I'd say each day that passes would tend
to lower the odds of me making such a change.
However, in the US if you are nuts you are not allowed to own guns.
Check it out.
Kane
Kane
> Kane <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 18, 7:48 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
> >> "Jerry Beeler" <jerrybee...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >"quaker" <notafan.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:46268d7e$0$3157$ae4e...@news.nationwide.net...
>
> >> >> had there been other weapons allowed on campus then we'd have more
> >> >> carnage. It's like the war mentality... we lose lives to save lives.
> >> >> thinking.
>
> >> >I'm having a little trouble with this "more carnage" statement.
>
> >> >Scenario: I have a license for concealed carry. I'm walking across campus
> >> >and see the perp raise his weapon to fire on another student (or myself). I
> >> >draw my Kimber .45, insure I have a clear shot, within reasonable range, and
> >> >place a 165 gr Cor-bon +P JHP squarely in the center of his chest.
> >> >"Carnage" ended, perp is very dead.
>
> >> Why is he going to give you a clear shot?
>
> >Because I am not going to make my presence and my armaments too
> >obvious.
>
> How will you manage this in a classroom where he comes in shooting at
> you.
Non sequitur.
I'll not draw his attention, as I said, before he knows I'm armed. I
will have already fired before he gets who and where I am.
>
> >And he's unlikely BE THERE, given the change in scenario that comes
> >with knowing anyone COULD be defensively armed. You aren't thinking.
>
> Tell it to all the dead defensively-armed soldiers in Iraq.
You seem unable to connect the dots.
You are arguing I should do nothing because I might fail?
Rather typical cowardly gun grabber ideas, sir. We've seen them here
before.
Your solution is to cower, or if unable to, just run away while people
die? I've chosen a different path.
By your
> reasoning, no criminals would ever shoot people in Iraq because it is
> too likely that there will be someone who will shoot back. It hasn't
> stopped the shooting
You'll find, if you care to do the research (some of it is cited in
tpg for many years now), that where both concealed carry has become
"on demand" "shall issue," violent crime rates dropped.
And gun crime did NOT go up. On the contrary.
And I don't carry so much to deter (that's a nice and welcome side
effect and I just love the idea that a thug about to attack has to
stop and consider if I might be armed) as to defend in real life. I
have.
>
> >> First of all, he is doing
> >> this inside a classroom and not in the open.
>
> >Same rule applies. I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
> >he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately.
>
> You have to pull the gun to shoot it, and his is already out and
> firing.
Ah, I see. Because he is firing I'd best not pull my gun and use it.
Sure. That's logical.
You reveal considerable about the mindset that welcomes socialism.
> >Bet you thought I or any other trained shooter that carries for
> >defense would act like the "moovys," didn'tcha?
>
> I have no idea how you would act.
Nor do I beyond knowing myself and how I've acted before in
extremise.
>But if you are in position to stop
> the shooting, that means that you are already in the classroom as a
> student or the teacher, and he is shooting at you before you have a
> chance to get your weapon out.
Ah, I see your perfect logic again. Because I'm being shot at it's too
late. Right?
The janitor at VT was shot at 5 times. The perp Cho missed every shot.
If only that janitor had been armed and a good shot.
> >> He enters the room with
> >> the gun out and starts shooting, probably aiming at you the teacher
> >> first.
>
> >I'm not the teacher.
>
> Then you are a student and probably sitting down (which would slow
> your ability to react), or you aren't in the room at all.
Neither was the Janitor, but he came upon the scene. If only he'd
been armed.
By the way, few things, when I hear gun fire and screaming, would tend
to "slow" my ability to react. That was the case with Cho. He was
heard shooting, laughing, and victims were screaming.
Tell me again why I wouldn't want to have a gun in such circumstances
because the perp has some advantage. Please. This is hilarious.
> >But even if I were you presume that if he shot
> >and hit me I'd be completely and totally instantly incapacitated.
>
> Why would I make that assumption?
Your other arguments seem predicated on an idea that it's pointless
for me to be armed because of all the things that could go wrong for
me.
Tell you what. You continue your dreamstate, and I'll live in the real
world. I prefer I have, and wish some staff or students had, a gun.
>
> You on the other hand were making the assumption that you are not at
> all impaired, and have the time to shoot carefully.
I am?
Why, for goodness sake, would I make such an assumption? I've been in
situations where I in fact did have to make decisions just like I
would have had to be made by an armed defender in the VT scenario with
Cho.
Ever been in a gunfight or a situation with that kind of threat level?
Time slows, vision focus becomes extreme, and the oddest thing
happens...at least to me. I become able to absorb highly complex
detail of wide scope and understand and process it all. If a mouse
moved in the corner I'd know it and account for it, if need be.
I can see the person's every breath, his pulse, smell him. You never
been shot at have you?
>
> >Even people with headshots, severly wounded have managed to draw and
> >fire their weapon and take down the perp.
>
> I'm sure it can happen. But there are a lot of trained soldiers armed
> more heavily than you are who are getting shot in Iraq, and for every
> one of them, there are dozens of less-trained people, many of who have
> guns of their own, getting killed in the streets. There is no
> shortage of guns in Iraq, but there is little abatement of violence.
You seem to be having another argument than the one I'm participating
in with you. Why is that I wonder?
What ARE you suggesting? That I should not be armed because I might
fail?
Okay, you cower, I'll continue to be armed.
> >Year after year you yahoos come here to tpg, and spout without
> >bothering to do the least bit of research...even HERE in the ng.
>
> I am posting in the education newsgroup. I don't give a damn about
> tpg.
Didn't ask you to care. Just telling the a fact. And you need to
understand that you are crossposted to tpg. Hence you might see some
reference to it in my responses.
>
> >If you bothered to use google groups search on these issues you'd find
> >out a lot of information that would KILL your arguments, sir.
> >Immediately...like the information I just gave you. People that are
> >shot do NOT immediately die in most instances.
>
> Reports are that of 15-20 in the classrooms, only a few left the rooms
> alive, some of them by playing dead.
Yep. And you think that number would have been greater if someone shot
back at Cho? Fancy that, eh?
> >>But he is a nutcase, and doesn't care if he "has a clear
> >> shot", whereas you being a responsible person aren't going to want
> >> to
> >> hit the students, some of whom will be panicking and running around
> >> and generally making sure that you don't get a good shot.
>
> >If he is shooting during the "panicking," sir, I will NOT wait for a
> >good 'clear' shot while he's killing people. I'll shot to stop him.
>
> And thus increase both the panicking and possibly killing an innocent
> or two yourself.
Highly unlikely. I'm not going to share the tactical training I've had
with you or others, but trust me, I'd be highly unlikely to shoot
anyone but the perp.
You are throwing out possibles as fast as you can, not dealing with
what actually happened and what would actually have been likely had
there been return fire. He certainly wasn't mixing in with the
students and teachers but standing off and taking pot shots at them.
He actually made a nice target of himself, I'd think.
>
> >> Or he turns
> >> it into a hostage situation,
>
> >He's a dead man if he does that. Most defensive gun owers, who carry,
> >are well aware of the dangers in a hostage situation if it's allowed
> >to continue even a few seconds.
>
> So you consider yourself more expert in handling a hostage situation
> than a trained SWAT team?
You need to remember. I'd be IN the room with him. Do you think a SWAT
team member would hold fire with a gun pointed by the perp at anyone?
I recall a similar situation, with hostages, in Sacramento California
many years ago. Thugs all armed and about as rational as Cho.
The police held off and were "cautious." Something went wrong, and the
perps proceeded to run down the line of prone and kneelig hostages
and shoot them all, as I recall.
Had anyone INSIDE been armed, they would have fired at the perps, or I
suppose, just laid there and let themselves and others be killed.
http://www.answers.com/topic/1991-sacramento-hostage-crisis
Click above if you want to examine what can go wrong.
>
> >> and holds a gun to someone's head (using
> >> them as a human shield) till you drop your weapon (and then shoots you
> >> since you are obviously more dangerous than most).
>
> >You honestly think I'd drop my gun? I'd shoot right through the
> >hostage, wouldn't you?
>
> Since I don't have a gun, I wouldn't have to choose to kill an
> innocent person.
Ah, yes, cower and hope the madman won't execute anyone. That'll work.
Read the story from the link above.
>
> >You don't understand the odds about life, do you, boy?
>
> They are a lot lower when guns are involved.
Nope. Dead wrong. People in life threatening situations, when they
fight back, even withOUT a gun, have a greater chance of survival and
a greater chance of less injury. If they are armed their chances are
even better of survival.
The FBI put out a study on it some years ago.
Look it up.
>
> lojbab
Kane
> "Kane" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
> > he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately.
>
> Bingo.
>
> > People that are
> > shot do NOT immediately die in most instances.
>
> Precisely - that's why I would go for a "center of mass" shot and take him
> off his feet ASAP - disorient him - - Mr. Kimber has chambered another round
> and I'm back on target relatively quickly.
>
> > If he is shooting during the "panicking," sir, I will NOT wait for a
> > good 'clear' shot while he's killing people. I'll shot to stop him.
>
> Indeed ... definition of "clear shot" notwithstanding I'd like to think that
> if someone was immediately behind the perp I could "clear" my shot so that
> penetration would not take out an innocent. I'm not nearly as concerned
> about penetration with the .45 as I would be with a 9mm.
I never load with ball ammo except on the range.
>
> > And I'm a good enough shot to take the perp in the head, if need be.
>
> If need be it certainly should be. As you say, the object is to stop him.
> Period.
>
> > Even if only ONE person present was armed and used his gun there is
> > something wonderfully sobering, while unnerving as hell, to be shot
> > at. Tends to spoil the perp's deliberate execution of people.
>
> "unnerving as hell" ... that's an understatement - when the lead starts
> going coming toward the perp - it would probably change his perspective,
> significantly - in all probabiltity the perp would direct his fire toward
> the armed individual as opposed to his continued "deliberate execution of
> people". I'm not a hero but would damned sure rather (if I'm armed) that he
> direct his fire toward me as opposed to unarmed students!
Sorry, sir, but don't you know your chances of survival are greater if
you cower? I just got that from a poster here. Really.
>
> Jerry
Kane
This just in. A description of how Cho proceeded to slaughter people,
very methodically. Imagine what might have taken place had any ONE of
these folks shoot back.
And by the way, once again proof, like the FBI found, that fighting
back increases one's odds of survival:
http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/3614029603193372501314930821782288324968
Maine Man Says Sister Survived Va. Tech Rampage
April 18, 2007
With more chilling insight into the murderous rampage of Cho Seung-
Hui, we hear the horrifying story of death and survival from the
brother of Virginia Tech junior Katie Carney who was wounded inside a
classroom.
"He walked in, immediately started shooting. All the kids hit the
floor. He killed every student in the front row of seats and worked
his way back, row after row," said Danny Carney, of Kittery,
Maine. ...
Tell you what, Bobby. You cower, I'll shoot back. Tah.
Kane
Wouldn't.
I was making a point.
By the way, I discussed a very short Rem 870 Marine...18" barrel, that
is a pump. And reloading quickly is easy.
0:]
Bob LeChevalier
>> >Because I am not going to make my presence and my armaments too
>> >obvious.
>>
>> How will you manage this in a classroom where he comes in shooting at
>> you.
>
>Non sequitur.
>
>I'll not draw his attention, as I said, before he knows I'm armed.
In a case like this, if you are merely in the classroom, he WILL shoot
you. If you act in any way other than those who are screaming,
running, and cowering, he will know that you are a greater threat, and
shoot you first.
And if you aren't a student or a teacher, you are unlikely to be
anywhere near the classroom.
>You are arguing I should do nothing because I might fail?
We pay taxes for trained SWAT teams to handle things like this.
>Your solution is to cower,
Yep.
>or if unable to, just run away while people die?
Nope. Hire and equip trained professionals.
>You'll find, if you care to do the research (some of it is cited in
>tpg for many years now), that where both concealed carry has become
>"on demand" "shall issue," violent crime rates dropped.
That's why there are few people shot in Iraq, where there is nothing
stopping you from concealed carry except other who don't conceal what
they carry?
>> >> First of all, he is doing
>> >> this inside a classroom and not in the open.
>>
>> >Same rule applies. I'm not going to announce I have a gun, nor demand
>> >he drop his. I will simply DROP HIM immediately.
>>
>> You have to pull the gun to shoot it, and his is already out and
>> firing.
>
>Ah, I see. Because he is firing I'd best not pull my gun and use it.
You can try. But he has considerable advantage, and you behaving
other than the other students means that you will likely catch his
attention.
>You reveal considerable about the mindset that welcomes socialism.
What does government ownership of the means of production have to do
with this subject?
>> >Bet you thought I or any other trained shooter that carries for
>> >defense would act like the "moovys," didn'tcha?
>>
>> I have no idea how you would act.
>
>Nor do I beyond knowing myself and how I've acted before in
>extremis
I've done my best to avoid ever being in extremis, so far quite
successfully.
>>But if you are in position to stop
>> the shooting, that means that you are already in the classroom as a
>> student or the teacher, and he is shooting at you before you have a
>> chance to get your weapon out.
>
>Ah, I see your perfect logic again. Because I'm being shot at it's too
>late. Right?
Probably.
>> >But even if I were you presume that if he shot
>> >and hit me I'd be completely and totally instantly incapacitated.
>>
>> Why would I make that assumption?
>
>Your other arguments seem predicated on an idea that it's pointless
>for me to be armed because of all the things that could go wrong for
>me.
I have no idea whether it would be "pointless". I simply find your
hubris to be evidence of either overconfidence or studly macho
overcompensation for your insecurity.
>> You on the other hand were making the assumption that you are not at
>> all impaired, and have the time to shoot carefully.
>
>I am?
That was what you said that I responded to.
>Ever been in a gunfight or a situation with that kind of threat level?
No, and I never hope to be. I like to stay away from trouble.
>I can see the person's every breath, his pulse, smell him. You never
>been shot at have you?
No, and I never hope to be. I like to stay away from trouble.
>> >If you bothered to use google groups search on these issues you'd find
>> >out a lot of information that would KILL your arguments, sir.
>> >Immediately...like the information I just gave you. People that are
>> >shot do NOT immediately die in most instances.
>>
>> Reports are that of 15-20 in the classrooms, only a few left the rooms
>> alive, some of them by playing dead.
>
>Yep. And you think that number would have been greater if someone shot
>back at Cho?
No. I think that anyone who was alive in the classroom who didn't look
dead probably would have been shot until they did.
>> So you consider yourself more expert in handling a hostage situation
>> than a trained SWAT team?
>
>You need to remember. I'd be IN the room with him. Do you think a SWAT
>team member would hold fire with a gun pointed by the perp at anyone?
I believe that in hostage situations they often do so. But then I've
never watched a SWAT team in action, or even a phony one on TV.
lojbab
Chookie
Kane <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sounds like you've been watching it too. Unless you have done it a lot,
> > you are likely to have some difficulty with shooting a real live human dead,
> > even if he is a baddie.
>
> So that should deter me from attempting to do so when he is killing
> people? Hmmmm..you ARE out of touch with reality, or you are a
> coward.
Not at all -- you have missed the point. You are boasting about what a
wonderful shot you are and how you'd just "drop" the guy. It's very easy to
boast on Usenet. But let's assume you are the brilliant shooter which you
have claimed to be. So? A moving target is a different story from a
stationary one. A moving target that is human changes the situation again. A
moving target that is shooting, and surrounded by panicking people, might be a
bit harder to hit than that nice stationary bullseye at the gun club...
I'll just say that it's very nice of you to try, but people who announce their
prowess to the extent that you have been doing don't fill me with confidence.
> > Um. So how do you know that the perp won't be able to keep shooting after
> > *you've* shot him, then?
>
> I don't. So what? He probably will, for that matter. So I should get a
> truck and run over him instead?
Dear me, I thought you were going to just drop him because it was so easy to
do! Now you tell me he might still be able to shoot back.
> > And the larger question is: how do you know that you won't BE the perp
> > next time?
>
> Because I'm neither a criminal nor violent. But then, no one knows the
> answer to that for sure.
Exactly.
> Again, so what? We aren't talking about then, but about NOW.
>
> > What guarantee do we have that you won't go nuts and start shooting
> > people?
>
> I have no such guarantee. On the other hand I've had a very long life
> in which I've never done that. I'd say each day that passes would tend
> to lower the odds of me making such a change.
The problem is that this week's nutcase also thought he was normal...
> However, in the US if you are nuts you are not allowed to own guns.
> Check it out.
The papers here today are saying that this fellow *had* been officially nuts,
yet he still managed to arm himself. What went wrong?
Jan Drew
Fact is you don't know that. The 32 dead also took care of themselves.
Jan Drew
Wasn't the shooter also into heavy metal?
IMHO, all video games with blood and guts...guns shooting should be taken
off the market.
In my daycare centers, toy guns were not allowed.
Rob
I was going to say your personality is enough of a deterent
Raving
> "Stephen Wilson" <sr.wil...@ntlworld.com> expounded:
>
> >I guess you're happy living where you do.
>
> I live in Massachusetts, with guns locked securely unless on my
> person. Yes, I am very happy where I am. If I go into the city I'll
> bring a small pocket gun. I dislike all cities.
>
> >I know I don't feel comfortable
> >walking the streets of Washington DC, Philadelphia, Dallas, Los Angeles,
> >Chicago, etc. by day, let alone by night.
>
> Then don't. It isn't smart to do so anyways.
>
> > But then I wouldn't choose to live
> >in places like that either.
>
> Neither do I.
>
> >Maybe owning a gun makes you feel safe and
> >secure.
>
> I know it's there if I need it. I rarely do.
of carrying a device to ward off charging, rabid digs and grizzly
bears held a bit of an imaginative delight.
See http://www.bearsmart.com/backcountryManners/Deterrents.html for
an example of what I mean by this ...
OTOH, those were earlier and simpler times. ...
... and I also felt like a bit of a dorky nerd walking around with a
small, incendiary charge tucked into my breast pocket ( protector :-
> ... )
>
> > I'm just glad that you don't live anywhere near me.
>
> I'm thrilled I don't live anywhere near you. That would mean I lived
> in a place where the nanny state takes care of me. I'm perfectly able
> to take care of myself.
Personally, I think that bears are more interesting 'wildlife',
anyhoooo ...
BTW ...
I would also suspect that some of the 'wildlife deterrents' would
scare the crap out of human predators, too. The bark is more
threatening than the bite.
"...Weight: approx. 12 grams
Height: range of 40 meters (131
ft.) with 0.8-1.0 second
Noise Level: 115db
15 mm cartridges with audible effect and exploding flare insert. These
flash bang cartridges
explode with a loud bang after traveling 40 meters (131 ft.).
Used for animal control and signaling. Also known as Bird
Bombs, Bear Bombs, Noise Bombs, Bird Bangers, Crackers and
Twin Shot. Available in center fire or rim fire. ... "
( http://www.macecanada.com/downloads/catologue/16206%20CATALOGUE%20V2.pdf
)
Jeff
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ijYVh.17263$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
<...>
> IMHO, all video games with blood and guts...guns shooting should be taken
> off the market.
I don't even know why they are on the market. Parents shouldn't allow their
kids to buy them. If this were the case, there wouldn't be a market for
violent games.
We actually agree on something.
Jeff
Morton Davis
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:fjeg239lfp1e1jpn7...@4ax.com...
> Kane <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Because I am not going to make my presence and my armaments too
> >> >obvious.
> >>
> >> How will you manage this in a classroom where he comes in shooting at
> >> you.
> >
> >Non sequitur.
> >
> >I'll not draw his attention, as I said, before he knows I'm armed.
>
> In a case like this, if you are merely in the classroom, he WILL shoot
> you. If you act in any way other than those who are screaming,
> running, and cowering, he will know that you are a greater threat, and
> shoot you first.
>
>
a pair of armed robbers entered a restaurant to do one of those get everyone
in the back room and shoot them in the head robberies. An armed customer
engaged them with his own handgun, killing one and wounding the other. The
armed customer did get shot in the arm. No one else in the restaurant was
hurt. The other perp was caught at the hospital emergency room and was later
convicted of the murder of his partner and several other charges.
And then there's this:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/
Oliver Wong
"Jeff" <ne...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:%i1Wh.1622$Da6.1577@trnddc02...
>
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ijYVh.17263$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> <...>
>
>> IMHO, all video games with blood and guts...guns shooting should be
>> taken off the market.
>
> I don't even know why they are on the market. Parents shouldn't allow
> their kids to buy them. If this were the case, there wouldn't be a
> market for violent games.
I disagree. I am an adult, and I like violent videogames. As long as I
exist, there exists a market for violent videogames.
- Oliver
Stephen Wilson
>
>> I'm just glad that you don't live anywhere near me.
>
> I'm thrilled I don't live anywhere near you. That would mean I lived
> in a place where the nanny state takes care of me. I'm perfectly able
> to take care of myself.
Do you know how stupid that makes you sound?
Laws are made by the governments of all countries, usually to protect people
either from others or from themselves.
Do you have speed limits on the roads you drive on? Stupid nanny state -
they should scrap all the speed limits and sit back and watch drivers travel
at dangerous speeds.
Are heroin, cocaine, etc. illegal? Stupid nanny state - people should be
free to use these drugs without being dictated to.
From what I've seen, you need a nanny state cos you can't look after
yourselves. Obesity levels in America are reaching epidemic proportions.
Ann
>From what I've seen, you need a nanny state cos you can't look after
>yourselves. Obesity levels in America are reaching epidemic proportions.
And that has _what_ to do with the discussion? By the way, I'm 5'7"
and weigh 135 lbs - hardly overweight.
As for looking stupid, if you're the one doing the looking then
DILLIGAF?
Stephen Wilson
> "Stephen Wilson" <sr.w...@ntlworld.com> expounded:
>
>>From what I've seen, you need a nanny state cos you can't look after
>>yourselves. Obesity levels in America are reaching epidemic proportions.
>
> And that has _what_ to do with the discussion? By the way, I'm 5'7"
> and weigh 135 lbs - hardly overweight.
Try to keep up dear. You're the one who said "That would mean I lived
in a place where the nanny state takes care of me."
> As for looking stupid, if you're the one doing the looking then
> DILLIGAF?
I'm not looking. But seeing as you're repsonding, I guess you probably do
GAF.
SumBuny
"Ann" <ann...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:8lai23lmp1jh7ualc...@4ax.com...
Hey, Ann?
I would remind those who believe that are sanctimonious that being
underweight is also unhealthy as well (I know, I had some issues with that
at one time)
I had wondered about the eating disorder problems in England....
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=1362261
""LONDON (Reuters) - Living in big cities raises the risk of suffering from
the eating disorder bulimia but not anorexia nervosa, Dutch psychologists
said on Friday.
They found women in cities were five times more likely to have the
binge-and-purge illness than those who live in villages and hamlets but that
there was no difference in anorexia rates......
....The findings are based on a study of newly diagnosed cases of bulimia
and anorexia by a network of 63 general practitioners between 1985-1989 and
1995-1999. The bulimia rate was 2.5 times higher in urban areas than in the
countryside and five times higher in large cities...."""
Yes, being overweight can be unhealthy....but being underweight can be
deadly as well.....bingeing and purging can do a number on one's
electrolytes, causing--among other things--cardiac arrhythmia...not
something to be trifled with
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000362.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/eatingdisorders.html
--
Buny
--Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be
normal." ~ Albert Camus
Chookie
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote:
> That's what anti gun people like you always say. In Alabama a few years back
> a pair of armed robbers entered a restaurant to do one of those get everyone
> in the back room and shoot them in the head robberies.
I've never heard of this type of robbery before. We just don't have them
here. I wonder why that is?
Stephen Wilson
"SumBuny" <Sum...@NOBODYHEREcox.net> wrote in message
news:QsgWh.642676$BK1.1...@newsfe13.lga...
>
> I would remind those who believe that are sanctimonious that being
> underweight is also unhealthy as well (I know, I had some issues with that
> at one time)
>
> I had wondered about the eating disorder problems in England....
> http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=1362261
> ""LONDON (Reuters) - Living in big cities raises the risk of suffering
> from the eating disorder bulimia but not anorexia nervosa, Dutch
> psychologists said on Friday.
>
> They found women in cities were five times more likely to have the
> binge-and-purge illness than those who live in villages and hamlets but
> that there was no difference in anorexia rates......
> ....The findings are based on a study of newly diagnosed cases of bulimia
> and anorexia by a network of 63 general practitioners between 1985-1989
> and 1995-1999. The bulimia rate was 2.5 times higher in urban areas than
> in the countryside and five times higher in large cities...."""
>
> Yes, being overweight can be unhealthy....but being underweight can be
> deadly as well.....bingeing and purging can do a number on one's
> electrolytes, causing--among other things--cardiac arrhythmia...not
> something to be trifled with
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000362.htm
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/eatingdisorders.html
It's something I find quite bizarre. You'd have thought that most people
would know what a healthy diet is, and what a healthy weight is. Yet some
people are obsessed with trying to be super-thin and others keep eating like
there's no tomorrow (but then keep moaning about how hard it is to lose
weight).
I can't believe there are people who think that smoking is good for you. Yet
you even find doctors and nurses puffing away like there's no tomorrow.
Some people need protecting from the actions of others. Like people who work
in bars - who may be inhaling enough second-hand smoke to kill them. Other
people need protecting from themselves.
But it's always been a fine line - how much freedom you give society, when
legislation doesn't go far enough and when it goes too far. The smoker would
argue for the right to smoke; the non-smoker would argue for the right to be
able to breathe smoke-free air. More intelligent people can pay attention to
recommendations and make up their minds for themselves. Less intelligent
people have to have recommendations spoon-fed to them. But even relatively
intelligent people can find ways of justifying idiotic actions when they
need to.
nimue
>>>
>> Yea, well, I'm also a believer in the death penalty. I have no
>> problem whatsoever with a killer being killed. That way s/h/it won't
>> do it again.
>
> I've 3 arguments against this:
> 1) If it is found that the person found guilty was actually innocent,
> there is no way of bringing them back to life.
> mental state of health
> the first place and stop it happening rather than have to enforce a
> death penalty after the fact.
>
May I add a fourth reason? I don't think the government should have the
legal right to put people to death. I don't want that kind of power in the
hands of the government.
>>> So explain something to me. Why do "honest, legitimate people" need
>>> to own a
>>> gun? A gun is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Kill.
>>>
>> Because I have the right to defend myself.
>
> I really feel sorry that you feel the need for this. I don't own a
> gun. But then, I walk through the streets of the city I live in
> without fearing for my life. In my whole life, only one person I know
> has ever been shot. And that was accidentally, when a bullet from an
> airgun hit his lung. Fortunately he survived.
>
> You do own a gun. You consider yourself law-abiding.
Well, a person can own a gun legally and be law-abiding.
> But it only
> takes a moment's rage to do something you wouldn't under different
> circumstances. Maybe drinking too much. Maybe snapping when under
> stress. And unless you keep that gun under lock and key, there is
> always the chance that yourself or someone else (say a curious child)
> accidentally fires it.
If you don't trust YOURSELF to own a gun, if you can't trust yourself to act
sensibly under stress, etc., then by all means DON'T own a gun. However, if
you can trust yourself, and if you are worthy of such trust according to
state law, etc., then there is no reason why you shouldn't have a gun.
>
> The USA instituted the great war on terror. The sad fact is that
> Americans kill far more Americans than anyone else.
>
> I guess you're happy living where you do. I know I don't feel
> comfortable walking the streets of Washington DC, Philadelphia,
> Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. by day, let alone by night. But
> then I wouldn't choose to live in places like that either. Maybe
> owning a gun makes you feel safe and secure. I'm just glad that you
> don't live anywhere near me.
I'll tell you a funny story. My husband and I decided to go get an ice
cream at a shop on Speedway in Tucson one night. My husband, being a man,
decided to park under a tree towards the back of the lot. I NEVER would
have done that. EVER. I would have parked right by the well-lit shop.
However, I was with him, so I felt safe. As I came back to the car and
opened the door, I felt a presence just behind my shoulder. I turned my
head to see a man walk out from the dark from behind the tree a few steps
away from me. He had no business being there. Nothing was there. My
heart le aped to my throat. I was absolutely terrified and I grabbed my
gun. This guy said, "Do you have any change?" and my husband said, "No,"
and the guy walked away. I don't know if he saw my gun, or my husband, or
that there were two of us, or if he meant no harm in the first place
(although I felt he did). My husband then said to me, "No, we have no
change, but my wife was just about to shoot you." I couldn't stop laughing
because I was so afraid and relieved. Anyway, there are many points here.
One is that it's nice to have a gun, but common sense works well, too. We
are never allowed to park by that tree again! Another is that although I
was afraid -- really afraid -- I didn't shoot. I didn't have to and I trust
myself not to. Had I been forced to defend myself, though, it would be nice
to have a gun. My husband and his family all have guns and have always had
guns and although tempers can run high, no one has ever gone for one or done
anything remotely like that.
--
nimue
Perspective and proportion are the first casualties of hysteria.
Steven A. Shaw
Stephen Wilson
"nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:462a74f2$0$24701$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> May I add a fourth reason? I don't think the government should have the
> legal right to put people to death. I don't want that kind of power in
> the
> hands of the government.
A valid point!
<snip>
> If you don't trust YOURSELF to own a gun, if you can't trust yourself to
> act
> sensibly under stress, etc., then by all means DON'T own a gun. However,
> if
> you can trust yourself, and if you are worthy of such trust according to
> state law, etc., then there is no reason why you shouldn't have a gun.
Do you trust yourself? More importantly, do you trust other people? If you
feel that there are people out there who can't be trusted with a weapon,
bare in mind that anything that any human has done is potentially doable by
any of us in the same situation. There is no fixed line between right and
wrong - the line is permeable.
Not everybody can show the same self-restraint. Many work on the principle
of shoot first, ask questions later. It's possible to defend yourself with
less lethal weapons - a siren to summon help or pepper spray.
If you have children, you make sure that dangerous objects are outside their
reach until they have enough common sense not to harm themselves with them.
Yet many teenagers still sniff glue, many adults drink themselves
unconscious, etc. And I've known normally intelligent, down-to-earth people
simply flip. Some event, or maybe some change in the brain, has caused them
to undergo a temporary panic attack, or a longer-lasting breakdown.
All I'm suggesting is that if guns are not freely available, it removes one
more danger and makes it less easy to kill. Owning a gun should be a
privilege, not a right.
Ann
>I'll tell you a funny story. My husband and I decided to go get an ice
>cream at a shop on Speedway in Tucson one night. My husband, being a man,
>decided to park under a tree towards the back of the lot. I NEVER would
>have done that. EVER. I would have parked right by the well-lit shop.
>However, I was with him, so I felt safe. As I came back to the car and
>opened the door, I felt a presence just behind my shoulder. I turned my
>head to see a man walk out from the dark from behind the tree a few steps
>away from me. He had no business being there. Nothing was there. My
>heart le aped to my throat. I was absolutely terrified and I grabbed my
>gun. This guy said, "Do you have any change?" and my husband said, "No,"
>and the guy walked away. I don't know if he saw my gun, or my husband, or
>that there were two of us, or if he meant no harm in the first place
>(although I felt he did). My husband then said to me, "No, we have no
>change, but my wife was just about to shoot you." I couldn't stop laughing
>because I was so afraid and relieved. Anyway, there are many points here.
>One is that it's nice to have a gun, but common sense works well, too. We
>are never allowed to park by that tree again! Another is that although I
>was afraid -- really afraid -- I didn't shoot. I didn't have to and I trust
>myself not to. Had I been forced to defend myself, though, it would be nice
>to have a gun. My husband and his family all have guns and have always had
>guns and although tempers can run high, no one has ever gone for one or done
>anything remotely like that.
Thank you for sharing your story. It shows you are prepared but not
ready to shoot unnecessarily. I feel the same way. But there are
those out there who will never understand.
Stephen Wilson
No, I don't understand.
In 2004, a National Academies of Science study was unable to draw any
conclusions about whether owning a gun makes citizens safer.
Question. Are you willing to use lethal force to protect yourself? Not
threaten to use. Not "well it depends." Not "well if I have to". Nor is
"can't I just scare him away by waving it around?" an acceptable answer.
Yes or no.
And if you choose yes, then you are accepting the responsibility that you
will be acting with dedication and commitment to take another human life. If
you ever do that, you will have to live with the repercussions and guilt for
the rest of your life. A 'yes' answer is not an act of bravado, but a
rational, calculated decision to take responsibility.
In about 99% of the cases that police see when one person fires a gun at
another (and both survive), both sides claim it was self-defense. And it
isn't just one side lying, it's usually both. That old cliché about "taking
two to fight" is true. Which means in that same 99% both sides were actively
fighting, not only blaming the other, but protesting their 'innocence'.
nimue
Yes. Anyone who answers no to that is a moron, or possibly Gandhi.
>
> And if you choose yes, then you are accepting the responsibility that
> you will be acting with dedication and commitment to take another
> human life.
You choose to live your life in such a way as to minimize the possibility
that you might find yourself in such a situation. That said, sometimes shit
just happens. If it does, it's good to have a gun.
>If you ever do that, you will have to live with the
> repercussions and guilt for the rest of your life.
That's something they talk about in gun education classes.
>A 'yes' answer is
> not an act of bravado, but a rational, calculated decision to take
> responsibility.
Again, anyone who isn't willing to kill to prevent themselves from being
killed is, well, beyond my comprehension.
>
> In about 99% of the cases that police see when one person fires a gun
> at another (and both survive), both sides claim it was self-defense.
Really? Cite, please.
> And it isn't just one side lying, it's usually both. That old cliché
> about "taking two to fight" is true. Which means in that same 99%
> both sides were actively fighting, not only blaming the other, but
> protesting their 'innocence'.
Cite.
nimue
> "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:462a74f2$0$24701$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>>
>> May I add a fourth reason? I don't think the government should have
>> the legal right to put people to death. I don't want that kind of
>> power in the
>> hands of the government.
>
> A valid point!
Thank you.
>
> <snip>
>
>> If you don't trust YOURSELF to own a gun, if you can't trust
>> yourself to act
>> sensibly under stress, etc., then by all means DON'T own a gun.
>> However, if
>> you can trust yourself, and if you are worthy of such trust
>> according to state law, etc., then there is no reason why you
>> shouldn't have a gun.
>
> Do you trust yourself?
Yes.
>More importantly, do you trust other people?
Not all of them, hence gun.
> If you feel that there are people out there who can't be trusted with
> a weapon,
There are and they have them, whether legally or not.
A gun education class, which should be mandatory, I think, if you want a
gun, will disabuse of that notion real quick.
>It's possible to
> defend yourself with less lethal weapons - a siren to summon help or
> pepper spray.
Sure. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't have a gun.
>
> If you have children, you make sure that dangerous objects are
> outside their reach until they have enough common sense not to harm
> themselves with them. Yet many teenagers still sniff glue, many
> adults drink themselves unconscious, etc. And I've known normally
> intelligent, down-to-earth people simply flip. Some event, or maybe
> some change in the brain, has caused them to undergo a temporary
> panic attack, or a longer-lasting breakdown.
That happens. However, I shouldn't be denied a gun because the world is a
terrible place. I should have one because of it. Have you heard of the
Merced Pitchfork murders? A man killed two young children with a pitchfork?
Their older sister who had passed her hunter safety course and received her
certification was unable to protect them with her dad's gun because it was
unloaded and out of reach, per California law. So, two kids died at the
hands of a pitchfork wielding maniac. Had the elder sister been able to get
the gun and shoot him, they all might have lived (except for the maniac, who
was shot to death by the cops later). Here are some links.
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/deaths_in_merced.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe1.html
Anyway, my point is that guns can be life-savers. Sure, you can find lots
of bad-gun stories and it is not my intent to get into a citing war here.
However, the fact remains that if this girl had been armed, her siblings
would most likely be alive.
> All I'm suggesting is that if guns are not freely available, it
> removes one more danger and makes it less easy to kill.
And I am saying that having a gun can save your life.
>Owning a gun
> should be a privilege, not a right.
--
The Autist formerly known as
shouting at him, but he persisted, so I kept shouting until he backed off. I
think he may have been on drugs because it took quite a lot of shouting to
disquiet him.
However on another occasion in London, a guy asked for "change" I gave him
some and he wasn't happy, he proceeded to advance an argument that the least
I could do is empty out my pockets and give him all of my change. Being as I
considered he had a point, and was clearly more disadvantaged than I, so I
did as he asked of my own free will.
--
şT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:462a74f2$0$24701$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> "Ann" <ann...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:vq8d239k4eethhr8a...@4ax.com...
nimue
> I was in a similar situation when some guy asked for my wallet, I
> started shouting at him, but he persisted, so I kept shouting until
> he backed off. I think he may have been on drugs because it took
> quite a lot of shouting to disquiet him.
Are you male or female? Large or small? Was the guy your roommate who was
asking for rent money?
>
> However on another occasion in London, a guy asked for "change" I
> gave him some and he wasn't happy, he proceeded to advance an
> argument that the least I could do is empty out my pockets and give
> him all of my change. Being as I considered he had a point, and was
> clearly more disadvantaged than I, so I did as he asked of my own
> free will.
Oh, I give spare change all the time. Creeping out from behind a big old
tree at the back of a nearly deserted parking lot at nightime is not a good
spare-changing technique. No, I think it's very possible that guy was
planning other things.
John Palmer
wrote:
>Stephen Wilson wrote:
>> Question. Are you willing to use lethal force to protect yourself? Not
>> threaten to use. Not "well it depends." Not "well if I have to". Nor
>> is "can't I just scare him away by waving it around?" an acceptable
>> answer.
>>
>> Yes or no.
>
>Yes. Anyone who answers no to that is a moron, or possibly Gandhi.
Or, considers the possibility of a false positive to be too high for
their tastes.
The statement "I am willing to use lethal force to protect my life"
also says (from a practical point of view) "I would rather kill an
innocent person who, at the time, appeared dangerous."
It doesn't take a moron or a person of strong faith and incredible
patience, to decide that he, or she, would be willing to take some
miniscule additional risk of dying to eliminate another miniscule risk
of harming others needlessly.
I will note that I am strongly in favor of a reasonable right to keep
and bear arms; I believe in the rights of ordinary citizens to carry
concealed weapons if they feel the need to do so. But I do not like
the rhetoric of the followers of the gun lobby.
I believe they have caused many people to see the world as being much
more dangerous than it is, to view theoretical other people with more
suspicion than is warranted, and I think that point of view has caused
a lot of harm.
I could, of course, be wrong about this. But I'm not surprised to see
someone, sight unseen, imagine I must be either stupid or saintly, and
not recognize that there are other options.
John Palmer
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Beauty has a beginning, and an ending, but always lives beyond its span,
in the hearts of many.
nimue
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:14:42 -0400, "nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
>>> Question. Are you willing to use lethal force to protect yourself?
>>> Not threaten to use. Not "well it depends." Not "well if I have
>>> to". Nor is "can't I just scare him away by waving it around?" an
>>> acceptable answer.
>>>
>>> Yes or no.
>>
>> Yes. Anyone who answers no to that is a moron, or possibly Gandhi.
>
> Or, considers the possibility of a false positive to be too high for
> their tastes.
No, the question is <<Are you willing to use lethal force to protect
yourself?>> If someone says, "No, I am not, because I might be wrong; I
might not be in danger," well, that person is a moron. That person is
saying that even if they were attacked by a knife-wielding maniac, they
still wouldn't use lethal force because they might be wrong about the
maniac's intentions. In that case, hey, Darwin's law is taking care of the
idiot, although unfortunately the maniac gets to live and breed.
>
> The statement "I am willing to use lethal force to protect my life"
> also says (from a practical point of view) "I would rather kill an
> innocent person who, at the time, appeared dangerous."
If you cannot distinguish between a dangerous situation or a lethal one,
then you don't trust yourself and you shouldn't have a gun. When I was
approached in the parking lot, I knew this was a potentially dangerous,
potentially lethal situation, but I knew I did NOT have to shoot at that
time. I would be willing to, though, had it become necessary. It didn't.
>
> It doesn't take a moron or a person of strong faith and incredible
> patience, to decide that he, or she, would be willing to take some
> miniscule additional risk of dying to eliminate another miniscule risk
> of harming others needlessly.
>
So what are you going to do when the maniac is rushing at you with a knife
or gun?
> I will note that I am strongly in favor of a reasonable right to keep
> and bear arms; I believe in the rights of ordinary citizens to carry
> concealed weapons if they feel the need to do so. But I do not like
> the rhetoric of the followers of the gun lobby.
Well, that's fine. I respect that.
>
> I believe they have caused many people to see the world as being much
> more dangerous than it is, to view theoretical other people with more
> suspicion than is warranted, and I think that point of view has caused
> a lot of harm.
I agree with you there, too.
>
> I could, of course, be wrong about this.
No. You have a valid point.
>But I'm not surprised to see
> someone, sight unseen, imagine I must be either stupid or saintly, and
> not recognize that there are other options.
>
>
> John Palmer
--
Ann
>No, I don't understand.
>In 2004, a National Academies of Science study was unable to draw any
>conclusions about whether owning a gun makes citizens safer.
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm
>
>Question. Are you willing to use lethal force to protect yourself? Not
>threaten to use. Not "well it depends." Not "well if I have to". Nor is
>"can't I just scare him away by waving it around?" an acceptable answer.
>
>Yes or no.
Absolutely. I would never 'wave it around', that's brandishing and
will get your license lost in this state. If I pull the gun, it's to
use it.
>And if you choose yes, then you are accepting the responsibility that you
>will be acting with dedication and commitment to take another human life. If
>you ever do that, you will have to live with the repercussions and guilt for
>the rest of your life. A 'yes' answer is not an act of bravado, but a
>rational, calculated decision to take responsibility.
>
I'm willing to accept responsibility for my life and for those whom I
love. Everyone else is on their own. But threaten me or mine and I
will use my gun, which I am trained to do.
>In about 99% of the cases that police see when one person fires a gun at
>another (and both survive), both sides claim it was self-defense. And it
>isn't just one side lying, it's usually both. That old cliché about "taking
>two to fight" is true. Which means in that same 99% both sides were actively
>fighting, not only blaming the other, but protesting their 'innocence'.
Your numbers are questionable. Cites, please?
Chookie
"0:-]" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <Za2Wh.66596$_c5.9431@attbi_s22>,
> > "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That's what anti gun people like you always say. In Alabama a few years
> >> back a pair of armed robbers entered a restaurant to do one of those get
> >> everyone in the back room and shoot them in the head robberies.
> >
> >I've never heard of this type of robbery before. We just don't have them
> >here. I wonder why that is?
>
> Here being violence crime free Australia? No armed robbery by
> murderous thugs?
Please read for comprehension. Our armed robbers don't tend to shoot their
victims (which I assume is what your "one of those" description at the top
means). In fact, even firing a shot is unusual:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Shot-fired-during-armed-robbery/2007/04/16/
1176575717253.html
> ... According to the ABS, NSW experienced big decreases in the
> incidence of armed robbery (down 32%), unarmed robbery (down 18%),
> break and enter (down 13%) and motor vehicle theft (down 20%).
>
> The only offences that increased nationally, according to the ABS,
> were murder, manslaughter, assault and sexual assault. However, the
> increases in murder and manslaughter involved very small numbers of
> cases (an extra seven murders and an extra ten manslaughters across
> the whole of Australia). The increases in assault and sexual assault,
> on the other hand, were fairly small (less than six per cent).
>
> The ABS figures show that NSW experienced a 63 per cent increase in
> manslaughter and a 21 per cent increase in blackmail/extortion. Once
> again, however, the numbers are small. Despite the increase, NSW last
> year recorded only 13 cases of manslaughter and 82 cases of
> blackmail/extortion. As the Bureau reported earlier this year, there
> were also some minor increases in assault (up 6.1%) and sexual assault
> (up 3.4%). ...
>
> And after all that gun confiscation...tsk tsk.
LOL, I should be worried at the steep rise in manslaughter cases to THIRTEEN
IN TOTAL? In a state of 6.7 million people? I'm sure I won't sleep a wink!
BTW, those were 2003 stats. Here are some stats for NSW for 2001-5:
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_trends_
shootingmar06
> No, lad, you do NOT have a crime free country by far.
I'm a lass.
> And guns have not made a difference, only as to disarming those that
> might have been able to protect themselves and are reflected in the
> violent crime rates.
This assertion does not match the data.
Our experience of gun control is likely to be different to yours, for
historical reasons. We've always had very strict controls on handguns (due to
the convict background), while the US has not. If you wanted to a weapon to
symbolise our country, it wouldn't be the Colt .45, but a shotgun.
As you probably know, our already-strict laws became stricter after a
mass-murder similar in size to the one this week (except that the population
of Tasmania is less than 500,000, not the 7.5 million of Virginia -- so a much
greater psychological effect).
The difference that we have seen since the gun buy-back programme has been the
almost complete absence of nutter crime, if I can put it scientifically ;-).
I don't think there has been a single mass-murder shooting since the new laws
came in, because it is so much harder to get hold of semiautomatic weapons.
And we used to have a lot of murder-suicides, where a severely depressed man
would shoot his wife/kids and then himself with his own rifle/shottie.
Despite our current drought (the people were often farmers), we aren't seeing
that so often. It's simply much, much harder to act on a sudden impulse to
kill people because the number of guns held by *apparently*-sane, law-abiding
people have decreased.
Of course there are still plenty of guns in the underworld, but they use them
on each other. There was a spate of underworld murders in Melbourne last
year, all well-conducted hits obviously done by professionals. I'd have to be
*very* unlucky to get mixed up in that, and frankly I don't care too much if a
bunch of drug lords shoot each other. Apart from hits, crime levels are
strongly linked to the heroin trade here.
I'm hesitant to suggest to you exactly how gun control could be done in the
USA, because we are a far less violent population than yours is (and therefore
far less frightened of each other) and we never had the vast quantities of
guns that you people have just lying around. I would suggest that mandatory
police and hospital checks, and compulsory gun club membership/training would
be a useful way to start. Aussies get a laugh every northern autumn when some
poor US farmer is shown painting 'COW' on the sides of his animals! If you
give guns to people who don't even know a cow (or, apparently, a good friend)
when they see one, of course you are going to have unfortunate accidents.
Chookie
"nimue" <cup_o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, the question is <<Are you willing to use lethal force to protect
> yourself?>> If someone says, "No, I am not, because I might be wrong; I
> might not be in danger," well, that person is a moron.
Not necessarily. The question as it stands is incomplete: it doesn't say
what I'm protecting myself from. For example, I'm not willing to use lethal
force to protect myself from Scientologists. John restated the question in a
more precise form.
> If you cannot distinguish between a dangerous situation or a lethal one,
> then you don't trust yourself and you shouldn't have a gun.
Don't be silly. You've never heard of police or soldiers shooting an innocent
person dead?
Stephen Wilson
<snip>
>> Do you trust yourself?
>
> Yes.
>
>>More importantly, do you trust other people?
>
> Not all of them, hence gun.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it quite sad that we live in a society where
people are unable to trust each other.
>> If you feel that there are people out there who can't be trusted with
>> a weapon,
>
> There are and they have them, whether legally or not.
There are. But I know that I'd feel safer in an environment being unarmed
and knowing nobody else was armed than I would be in an environment where I
was armed with a gun, knowing everybody else was also armed with a gun.
<more snipped>
>> All I'm suggesting is that if guns are not freely available, it
>> removes one more danger and makes it less easy to kill.
>
> And I am saying that having a gun can save your life.
I think it's more likely to be the cause for ending your life. Consider:
People who are suicidal find it easy to end their own lives with a gun.
If you confront an armed man, I'd suggest he's far more likely to use his
gun on you if he sees you are also armed.
Stephen Wilson
I don't have one to hand. However, here's part of an article from the
Orlando Sentinel:
"Michael Brady didn't think about his rights when he shot and killed a
stranger in his front yard. He says he was just scared.
Brady is one of at least 13 people in Central Florida who pulled the trigger
this year under a new law that loosens restrictions on the use of deadly
force in self-defense.
They killed six men and wounded four more. All but one of the people shot
were unarmed. So far, three of the shooters have been charged. Five have
been cleared; the other cases are under review.
Brady and his wife, who tried to resuscitate Boyette, have received hate
mail and angry telephone calls since the shooting. Brady keeps a rifle at
hand.
"I'm having a hard time dealing with this psychologically," Brady said.
"Unfortunately, I had to make a decision that day that changed my life
forever. I wish I could turn back time."
"It is too early to tell whether the law makes Floridians safer or puts them
at greater risk. There are no statistics on the number of self-defense
claims statewide before or after the law took effect Oct. 1."
"In a January case in Orange County, the Sheriff's Office did not ask the
Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office to decide whether a homeowner with a
shotgun should have been charged in the wounding of a drunken intruder who
stumbled into the residence at 4 a.m., mistaking it for a friend's house.
And a detective did not respond after a teenager was shot in March. Instead,
the agency's on-call detective told deputies at the shooting scene to
forward their reports to the State Attorney's Office for review. Carlos
Avilez, 15, was suspected of attempting to steal a car near Orlando when the
owner's husband opened fire with a 9 mm pistol, hitting the teenager in the
back of the leg. A witness told deputies the teen may have been shot as he
was fleeing.
"I don't see how he could have been afraid of my son when he had a gun and
shot him running away," said Carlos' mother, Maria Avilez. Her son pleaded
guilty to breaking into the car.
The only account from the shooter, Michael Graham, 34, is a brief, barely
legible statement saying he felt threatened by the teen.
"I'll pass," said Graham, when asked to describe what happened."
Blinky Bill
"0:-]" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h2al231k6aertcvuj...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:25:47 +1000, Chookie
> <ehreb...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote:
>
>>In article <Za2Wh.66596$_c5.9431@attbi_s22>,
>> "Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's what anti gun people like you always say. In Alabama a few years
>>> back
>>> a pair of armed robbers entered a restaurant to do one of those get
>>> everyone
>>> in the back room and shoot them in the head robberies.
>>
>>I've never heard of this type of robbery before. We just don't have them
>>here. I wonder why that is?
>
Who claimed Australia was "violence crime free" sic? You are attempting to
construct a strawman.
> No armed robbery by
> murderous thugs?
I can't recall any incident where they did what was being discussed above -
"get everyone in the back room and shoot them in the head robberies"
>
> http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/cobby/1.html
>
> ... Five of them: a gang of spineless cowards who preyed on women and
> other people's property between prison terms. Between them they had
> over 50 convictions for offenses including larceny, illegal drug use,
> car theft, breaking and entering, armed robbery, escaping lawful
> custody, receiving stolen goods, assault and rape. Their leader was
> named John Raymond Travers. ...
>
> Hope you didn't miss, in the long laundry list, "armed robbery."
No-one claimed that armed robberies didn't occur. No-one claimed rape and
murder didn't occur. What is the point of your rant?
>
> Then there is:
>
> http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_media290503
>
> [[[ Looks like you have both good news, and sadly, some very bad bad
> news, too. ]]]
>
> ... According to the ABS, NSW experienced big decreases in the
> incidence of armed robbery (down 32%), unarmed robbery (down 18%),
> break and enter (down 13%) and motor vehicle theft (down 20%).
>
> The only offences that increased nationally, according to the ABS,
> were murder, manslaughter, assault and sexual assault. However, the
> increases in murder and manslaughter involved very small numbers of
> cases (an extra seven murders and an extra ten manslaughters across
> the whole of Australia). The increases in assault and sexual assault,
> on the other hand, were fairly small (less than six per cent).
>
> The ABS figures show that NSW experienced a 63 per cent increase in
> manslaughter and a 21 per cent increase in blackmail/extortion. Once
> again, however, the numbers are small. Despite the increase, NSW last
> year recorded only 13 cases of manslaughter and 82 cases of
> blackmail/extortion. As the Bureau reported earlier this year, there
> were also some minor increases in assault (up 6.1%) and sexual assault
> (up 3.4%). ...
>
> And after all that gun confiscation...tsk tsk.
>
> http://www.mcsm.org/dirlik3.html
>
> ... Look at the 1998 numbers, two years after the gun confiscation:
> armed robbery up 73%, unarmed robbery up 27%, assault up 20%, and
> unlawful entry up 8%.
That is called cherry picking. You are certainly well versed in gun nut
techniques.
> Again, read 'em and weep at
> http://www.ssaa.org.au,
Why would anyone weep when looking at the ABS reported crime figures for
2005?
> the web site of the Australian counterpart to
> the NRA.
And just as crazy.
> The data are compiled and graphed there using official
> government crime data. Looking at these graphs, also note that, before
> and after the confiscation, about 30% or less of these crimes even
> involve firearms to begin with.
>
> So suppose gun control actually did reduce the murder rate 10,20, or
> even 30% in Australia. What would Mr. Stembel, and Senators Currie and
> Van Hollen suggest the Aussis do about the remaining 90, 80, or 70% of
> their murders? There are no more legal guns left to confiscate!
"no more legal guns" - where do you get this nonsense? You do know that SSAA
stands for Sporting Shooters Association of Australia? What do you think
the shooters use?
> Stembel seems to be happy that in the year 2000, only about 20% of
> Australia's 302 murders involved a firearm.
It certainly seems a better result than firearms being used to kill about
70% of more than 15500 murdered in the US that year.
>
> Those are his numbers taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
> Doesn't he care about the remaining 80% of those murders which did not
> involve a firearm?
Why don't you ask him??
> How many of those victims were stabbed, strangled
> or beaten to death by a predator who knew his victim was weak and
> unarmed?
You will have to do your own research.
> How many of those victims could have defended themselves if
> only their government would have let them?
More nonsense. Their government lets them defend themselves - there is no
law against it.
> And how many of those
> predators would have thought twice if they thought their victim might
> be armed with a gun?
Probably none - the predator would probably just change his method to one
which prevents the victim from using any gun they might have.
> MCSM is doing our part to make sure we never have
> to ask those questions here in America.
>
> And before I forget, Mr. Stembel derided five "fine Southern States
> where gun laws are an anathema." Stembel himself lists their murder
> rates as follows: Texas (5.9), Georgia (8.0), Alabama (7.4),
> Mississippi (9.0), and Louisiana (12.5). ...
Aren't they all CCW states? Compare their 2000 murder rates citedabove with
Australia's national figure of 1.6 in 2000.
>
> No, lad, you do NOT have a crime free country by far.
No-one claimed we did - but you can't resist trying to build a strawman, can
you.
> And guns have not made a difference,
The laws were changed after a firearm mass-killing in Australia, nearly 11
years ago. There hasn't been one since, even though there was an average of
more than one a year in the previous decade. The laws seem to have made a
difference.
The Autist formerly known as
do is call out the Spanish Inquisition.
--
þT
L'autisme c'est moi
"Space folds, and folded space bends, and bent folded space contracts and
expands unevenly in every way unconcievable except to someone who does not
believe in the laws of mathematics"
"Chookie" <ehreb...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote in message
news:ehrebeniuk-6E212...@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
Spob
> You know, it would be nice to spend some of the money for all that
> technology instead on getting some quality mental health services
> going on on these campuses then maybe tragedies like this wouldn't
> happen in the first place.
Columbine might have been prevented if the parents of Harris and
Klebold hadn't had their heads up their asses. The parents were
criminally unaware of what was going on in their son's lives. Not so
sure about this one - this guy was known to have issues, apparently
fellow students had even wondered if he'd pull something like this. He
seems to have had a fundamentally broken brain. The way to have kept
this from happening would have been to pull him out of society.
Terry Jones
wrote:
>Columbine might have been prevented if the parents of Harris and
>Klebold hadn't had their heads up their asses. The parents were
>criminally unaware of what was going on in their son's lives. Not so
>sure about this one - this guy was known to have issues, apparently
>fellow students had even wondered if he'd pull something like this. He
>seems to have had a fundamentally broken brain. The way to have kept
>this from happening would have been to pull him out of society.
But surely the US is *based* on shooting people whom you believe are
oppressing you - the Revolutionary War? [And indeed this has been
advanced as a reason to support the possession of personal firearms.]
What appears to have been poorly investigated, or at least the results
not given much publicity, is the extent to which the various school
shooters genuinely *were* (or weren't) being abused by those they
chose to kill.
While there's a rational concern about becoming "collateral damage" in
such incidents, isn't possible that the unseemly haste to label all
such people as "mentally disturbed" / "irrational" is an attempt
(quite possibly unconscious) to avoid looking at what other kids (and
teachers) may have been *doing* to them?
--
Terry
John-Melb
> >>> That's what anti gun people like you always say. In Alabama a few years
> >>> back
> >>> a pair of armed robbers entered a restaurant to do one of those get
> >>> everyone
> >>> in the back room and shoot them in the head robberies.
>
> >>I've never heard of this type of robbery before. We just don't have them
> >>here. I wonder why that is?
Yes we have had that type of robbery before in Australia, a mate of
mine, and his 13 year old daughter were victims of just such a crime.
Lying anti-gun prick.
John-Melb
>
> news:h2al231k6aertcvuj...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:25:47 +1000, Chookie
> > <ehreben...@fowlspambegone.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>In article <Za2Wh.66596$_c5.9431@attbi_s22>,
We still have mass killings, but the perpetrators don't use guns.
The anti's call that a win.
Ho hum.